"Lets Have An Open and Honest Discussion About Race"

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I have come to realize that anytime that phrase is uttered on television(except maybe Fox, don't really watch it much) the ensuing discussion will always be about either white racism and white on black crime, or it is about the broken system when concerning black defendants or when blacks are involved in the case. Is it me or is this getting a little old at this point? If we were discussing a real civil rights case, or a case that really showed the systems inequities then I'd have no problems with us bringing this up, however every time its brought up it is brought up to try and "expose" discrimination against not minorities in general, but of Black Americans. I guess Hispanics and Asians will have to wait their turn.

This has lead me to make this thread, lets a have an honest and open discussion my friends, and lets see what we come to here. If you have anything you want to share about race relations in the US, the media's portrayal of race relations, media's race baiting, or anything even similar, now is the time and this thread is the place.

For my tidbit, I'd like to bring up this study that has been receiving a lot of attention. The author in the summary wrote, "Defendants of each race do relatively better when the jury pool contains more members of their own race, and, as a result, black defendants are clearly disadvantaged relative to their white counterparts when the proportion of blacks in the jury pool is so small." This seemed quite reasonable to me, and made sense. People are unfortunately able to relate to people of their own race easier; an advantage for any defendant. However, the news media spread this study the impact of more black jurors to white defendants, or Hispanic jurors to Hispanic defendants, or anything else besides the parts that make out whites to be racist and blacks to be victims.

Now, I am not going to sit here and pretend racism is in the past here in the good ol' US of A, because it isn't. Profiling happens everyday, and injustice happens every day. However, to think that its all because white people still are systematically trying to stick it to Blacks is in itself racist. That or white cops absolutely adore Asian people, because they have a crime rate waaay below what their "fair share" is, for lack of a better term.

Captcha: good night and good luck

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^That's my 12 foot pole.

Nah, just playin. As far as systematic racism goes, I think you'll still find it in some areas more than others in the form of passive stereotpying, but I think in the next 40-50 years we'll see more of a shift. I tend to look at it like a bell curve. At one end we have the 'actively anti racist' group, in the middle you'll have people largely indifferent, and at the end you'll have the racists. When most your racists are dying out of old age, the bell curve is going to be pulled in the direction of the anti racists.

I personally think interracial breeding to the point where skin tone is homogeneous is the best way of quickly getting rid of racism.

Jux:
I personally think interracial breeding to the point where skin tone is homogeneous is the best way of quickly getting rid of racism.

It's funny you mentioned this, as I was reading only the other day that a lot of our perceived "races" are going to disappear in the next hundred years or so, and be replaced by perceptibly different ones due to the multi-cultural societies that we now love in. Most races are apparently going to be a mix of "Asian" races and other races, due the immigration trends out of Asian nations, and the size of Asian families which are consistently and significantly larger than the nations to which they often immigrate.

I'll see if I can dig up the article and post it here.

Jux:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^That's my 12 foot pole.

Nah, just playin. As far as systematic racism goes, I think you'll still find it in some areas more than others in the form of passive stereotpying, but I think in the next 40-50 years we'll see more of a shift. I tend to look at it like a bell curve. At one end we have the 'actively anti racist' group, in the middle you'll have people largely indifferent, and at the end you'll have the racists. When most your racists are dying out of old age, the bell curve is going to be pulled in the direction of the anti racists.

I personally think interracial breeding to the point where skin tone is homogeneous is the best way of quickly getting rid of racism.

someone broke your pole Jux.

Also that interracial breeding wouldn't surprise me. Nearly everyone in America is a mutt as it is. Perhaps not along racial lines, but certainly along ethnic lines.

Jux:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^That's my 12 foot pole.

Nah, just playin. As far as systematic racism goes, I think you'll still find it in some areas more than others in the form of passive stereotpying, but I think in the next 40-50 years we'll see more of a shift. I tend to look at it like a bell curve. At one end we have the 'actively anti racist' group, in the middle you'll have people largely indifferent, and at the end you'll have the racists. When most your racists are dying out of old age, the bell curve is going to be pulled in the direction of the anti racists.

Bit of a problem with a simple bell curve model, a large chunk of the 'actively anti racist' crowd are racists themselves, and nearly all of that group tend to be quite good at getting the more obvious racists up in arms.

Society doesn't need or want that bell curve pulled in either direction, it needs and wants both ends chopped off and cauterized. Racism will cease to exist the moment no one gives a damn about race, and not an instant before.

That's part of why I was rather... unimpressed by the fact that we have the first (half) African American in the presidential office. People kept claiming that it was a great step forward in terms of fighting racism. It was actually a minor step back in my opinion due to the huge fuss it kicked up. Had no one but the crazies seen fit to even mention that particular aspect of BHO's heritage, THEN it would have been a great victory.

Zeh Don:

Jux:
I personally think interracial breeding to the point where skin tone is homogeneous is the best way of quickly getting rid of racism.

It's funny you mentioned this, as I was reading only the other day that a lot of our perceived "races" are going to disappear in the next hundred years or so, and be replaced by perceptibly different ones due to the multi-cultural societies that we now love in. Most races are apparently going to be a mix of "Asian" races and other races, due the immigration trends out of Asian nations, and the size of Asian families which are consistently and significantly larger than the nations to which they often immigrate.

I'll see if I can dig up the article and post it here.

Cool, then we'll judge people based on their economic class, or level of education, or which model of jet-car they drive.

Well...what do you expect? Nobody is going to start a discussion with "Let's make lies about how many ______ people are subhuman".

Anyway, I think you are missing the point with:

Shock and Awe:
However, to think that its all because white people still are systematically trying to stick it to Blacks is in itself racist.

Very few people say that, excepting the people who think it's all due to the space lizards.

However, all white people in the US (that is, all people, of which white people are a subset) grow up in US society, which is, as you say, racist. Because of that, a certain level of racism seems perfectly normal. It goes unnoticed because that's the way things are. The real problems are the ones that you don't recognise as problems.

Everyone has grown up to be bigoted to greater or lesser degrees about various issues, and generally not to notice this except in hindsight. It doesn't take people consciously trying to cause a problem to do so.

Heronblade:
That's part of why I was rather... unimpressed by the fact that we have the first (half) African American in the presidential office. People kept claiming that it was a great step forward in terms of fighting racism. It was actually a minor step back in my opinion due to the huge fuss it kicked up. Had no one but the crazies seen fit to even mention that particular aspect of BHO's heritage, THEN it would have been a great victory.

How would that work? For nobody (much) to mention it, him being black would have to be more or less a total non-issue, and you're most likely going to get a black person as PotUS before that happens.

...

Anyway, in my own country, we have a weird attitude to race. Racism is a problem, but it seems relatively minor for the most part, except in regards to Indigenous Australians, where it is appalling. For the most part, white Australia cheerfully ignores this, griping about tokenism and vague attempts to make things better. Every so often, though, there will be a big PR campaign, and people will be shocked and appalled and how did we not know. For 2 weeks and then they forget again. Maybe the government will take action, possibly even asking an Indigenous Australian what they feel about it somewhere along the line.

thaluikhain:
Well...what do you expect? Nobody is going to start a discussion with "Let's make lies about how many ______ people are subhuman".

Anyway, I think you are missing the point with:

Shock and Awe:
However, to think that its all because white people still are systematically trying to stick it to Blacks is in itself racist.

Very few people say that, excepting the people who think it's all due to the space lizards.

However, all white people in the US (that is, all people, of which white people are a subset) grow up in US society, which is, as you say, racist. Because of that, a certain level of racism seems perfectly normal. It goes unnoticed because that's the way things are. The real problems are the ones that you don't recognise as problems.

Everyone has grown up to be bigoted to greater or lesser degrees about various issues, and generally not to notice this except in hindsight. It doesn't take people consciously trying to cause a problem to do so.

Ah, but is it just Whites? Or is it everyone? That is the issue, the fact that we can talk about how evil whites are all day, but any time we mention a failing of another racial group you will find yourself being one of the most hated people in the country. If you want to argue that everyone grows up with prejudiced in one way or another I won't argue because its true. If you want to argue that its only whites, it strikes me as racist.

Also, I am fairly curious on the subject of the Aborigines, are they treated as Native Americans are with special reservations only they can live on with their own laws and such, or are they essentially just another group within the country?

Shock and Awe:
Ah, but is it just Whites? Or is it everyone? That is the issue, the fact that we can talk about how evil whites are all day, but any time we mention a failing of another racial group you will find yourself being one of the most hated people in the country. If you want to argue that everyone grows up with prejudiced in one way or another I won't argue because its true. If you want to argue that its only whites, it strikes me as racist.

Certainly. However, there's a phrase that gets bandied about, that "racism is prejudice plus power". Now, I don't think that should be taken terribly literally, but it's a useful soundbite.

In the western world, white people dominate the police, government, military, finance, industry, religious institutions and everything else of importance. White racism is a serious problem because of that But take a white racist from Texas or Wales, say, and drop them in Tokyo, where everything is dominated by ethnically Japanese people, suddenly things are very different.

Secondly, people in marginalised groups very often want equality for themselves and the privileged groups, they are quite happy to be bigoted towards other people. You have gay rights advocates who hate bisexuals, radical feminism tend to be transphobic, womanism was started by black women driven away from mainstream feminism for being black and (at least to an extent) black rights groups for being women (not sure how much the last applies).

Likewise, you've got people passionately, and rightfully calling for an end to racism that affects them, while cheerfully supporting racism that does not, making a mockery of the whole thing. Because of this sort of thing, intersectionality is so important.

Shock and Awe:

Also, I am fairly curious on the subject of the Aborigines, are they treated as Native Americans are with special reservations only they can live on with their own laws and such, or are they essentially just another group within the country?

Yes and no. Historically our various governments have tried to treat either equally or in the same accordance as Canada's Indian laws. Constitutionally (federal) Aborigines are supposed to subject to their own laws (via sovereignty - the power of a people to rule their own affairs) and customs, and were thus excluded from the laws of white people, unless they gave up their Aboriginal status via enfranchisement (which how they were excluded from voting and census). However unlike north America, the Aborigines never constructed a ruling body to govern themselves, which is why the various 'white' bodies were created to 'protect' the Aboriginal people. And that's when things started going downhill.

In essence much of the original failings with the Aboriginal people originate from the fact that we tried to treat them in the same manner as the Indians of North America and and the Maori. Unfortunately Aboriginals, as far as I am aware in terms of history, never had the kind of formalized leadership,property culture, agriculture or fixed habitation that we expected. Hence attempts with negotiating trade of land and property tended to fail miserably as British couldn't negotiate terms for property ownership . In many ways Aborigines are the victim of their own cultural uniqueness.

Realitycrash:

Cool, then we'll judge people based on their economic class, or level of education, or which model of jet-car they drive.

Oddly enough, I would hypothesize that most racism exists only as an extent of class discrimination. Black people of the United States typically occupy the lower working class strata, Jews typically have 'safe' placement in the upper middle and upper classes etc. Again a theory, and hardly applicable to all.

Heronblade:

That's part of why I was rather... unimpressed by the fact that we have the first (half) African American in the presidential office. People kept claiming that it was a great step forward in terms of fighting racism. It was actually a minor step back in my opinion due to the huge fuss it kicked up. Had no one but the crazies seen fit to even mention that particular aspect of BHO's heritage, THEN it would have been a great victory.

But if race shouldn't really matter, why do you feel the need to detract from Obama's Afican American-ness by saying he's only half?

I do get what you're saying about race not mattering, and that it would be an ideal end point. But I think you're wrong to criticise celebrating Obama's presidency on race, because not mattering will surely only occur when the presence of races in public view is normalised. People simply cannot help but notice if races are heavily under- or over-represented: it sticks out like a sore thumb, it cannot help but suggest difference, it will always be the elephant in the room if we try to claim race doesn't matter.

Zeh Don:

Jux:
I personally think interracial breeding to the point where skin tone is homogeneous is the best way of quickly getting rid of racism.

It's funny you mentioned this, as I was reading only the other day that a lot of our perceived "races" are going to disappear in the next hundred years or so, and be replaced by perceptibly different ones due to the multi-cultural societies that we now love in. Most races are apparently going to be a mix of "Asian" races and other races, due the immigration trends out of Asian nations, and the size of Asian families which are consistently and significantly larger than the nations to which they often immigrate.

I'll see if I can dig up the article and post it here.

If you can i'll happily read the article but i think it's a load of rubbish to argue that the main races we recognise today are going to disappear any time soon. Yes an increasing number of people are going to be born inter-racial this century because of increased movement around the globe but i can't see this movement of people being significant enough to alter the racial compositions of entire continents. Most people, even in multicultural societies, take partners from similar racial backgrounds because of a shared language and shared cultural heritage. There will be a lot more inter racial people for sure by the end of this century but i think the races we recognise today will certainly be prominent.

Agema:

Heronblade:

That's part of why I was rather... unimpressed by the fact that we have the first (half) African American in the presidential office. People kept claiming that it was a great step forward in terms of fighting racism. It was actually a minor step back in my opinion due to the huge fuss it kicked up. Had no one but the crazies seen fit to even mention that particular aspect of BHO's heritage, THEN it would have been a great victory.

But if race shouldn't really matter, why do you feel the need to detract from Obama's Afican American-ness by saying he's only half?

I do get what you're saying about race not mattering, and that it would be an ideal end point. But I think you're wrong to criticise celebrating Obama's presidency on race, because not mattering will surely only occur when the presence of races in public view is normalised. People simply cannot help but notice if races are heavily under- or over-represented: it sticks out like a sore thumb, it cannot help but suggest difference, it will always be the elephant in the room if we try to claim race doesn't matter.

It is not a matter of detracting from his "African American-ness", it is a simple statement of the truth. His heritage is almost exactly half African and half Caucasian. The fact that people only seem to see the latter part is a part of the problem. We still divide ourselves along racial boundaries when there is a visible difference, even when the difference is nothing but an illusion thanks to interbreeding. The truth of the matter is that nearly all of us in America are interbred mutts, and very very few of us can honestly claim to truly be members of any particular race.

Heronblade:

Jux:
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^That's my 12 foot pole.

Nah, just playin. As far as systematic racism goes, I think you'll still find it in some areas more than others in the form of passive stereotpying, but I think in the next 40-50 years we'll see more of a shift. I tend to look at it like a bell curve. At one end we have the 'actively anti racist' group, in the middle you'll have people largely indifferent, and at the end you'll have the racists. When most your racists are dying out of old age, the bell curve is going to be pulled in the direction of the anti racists.

Bit of a problem with a simple bell curve model, a large chunk of the 'actively anti racist' crowd are racists themselves, and nearly all of that group tend to be quite good at getting the more obvious racists up in arms.

Society doesn't need or want that bell curve pulled in either direction, it needs and wants both ends chopped off and cauterized. Racism will cease to exist the moment no one gives a damn about race, and not an instant before.

That's part of why I was rather... unimpressed by the fact that we have the first (half) African American in the presidential office. People kept claiming that it was a great step forward in terms of fighting racism. It was actually a minor step back in my opinion due to the huge fuss it kicked up. Had no one but the crazies seen fit to even mention that particular aspect of BHO's heritage, THEN it would have been a great victory.

I always wonder if you 'ignore race' people or just naive or purposefully throwing out the most blatantly terrible solution that isn't outright racist. People who, unline you, are against racism pay attention to race because that is what racists discriminate based on. For them to ignore race any time before racists stop is to just stick ones head in the sand about the problem. Anti-racist people not giving a damn won't make racists stop.

But I imagine you'll ignore reason here for that obnoxious thing where people try to pretend they're better for being in the 'middle'. As if it being against racism actively is crazy and thinking it'll go away if you just don't care about race isn't. As if racists will just naturally vanish without effort.

Dijkstra:

I always wonder if you 'ignore race' people or just naive or purposefully throwing out the most blatantly terrible solution that isn't outright racist. People who, unline you, are against racism pay attention to race because that is what racists discriminate based on. For them to ignore race any time before racists stop is to just stick ones head in the sand about the problem. Anti-racist people not giving a damn won't make racists stop.

But I imagine you'll ignore reason here for that obnoxious thing where people try to pretend they're better for being in the 'middle'. As if it being against racism actively is crazy and thinking it'll go away if you just don't care about race isn't. As if racists will just naturally vanish without effort.

Pop quiz for you. What is the number one rule when dealing with internet trolls? Here's a hint, it isn't to confront them.

By all means we shall continue to make acting on racist tendencies difficult by law. But most of that work has already been done. The problem we face now is that much of the remaining portion of people who are openly racist either get a perverse kick out of causing misery, and/or see the activity of anti racists as good excuse for their beliefs/behavior. In both cases, raising a fuss is anti productive.

Besides, holding onto the false concept of race is in and of itself racist. Dividing humanity into artificial (and usually meaningless) groupings, whether consciously or otherwise, inevitably means assigning attributes and/or judgments on said groups. In most cases, this is mild and reasonably harmless, but still by definition racism. So yes, I do, and always will, advocate letting this particular social construct go the way of the dinosaurs.

Heronblade:

Dijkstra:

I always wonder if you 'ignore race' people or just naive or purposefully throwing out the most blatantly terrible solution that isn't outright racist. People who, unline you, are against racism pay attention to race because that is what racists discriminate based on. For them to ignore race any time before racists stop is to just stick ones head in the sand about the problem. Anti-racist people not giving a damn won't make racists stop.

But I imagine you'll ignore reason here for that obnoxious thing where people try to pretend they're better for being in the 'middle'. As if it being against racism actively is crazy and thinking it'll go away if you just don't care about race isn't. As if racists will just naturally vanish without effort.

Pop quiz for you. What is the number one rule when dealing with internet trolls? Here's a hint, it isn't to confront them.

By all means we shall continue to make acting on racist tendencies difficult by law. But most of that work has already been done. The problem we face now is that much of the remaining portion of people who are openly racist either get a perverse kick out of causing misery, and/or see the activity of anti racists as good excuse for their beliefs/behavior. In both cases, raising a fuss is anti productive.

Besides, holding onto the false concept of race is in and of itself racist. Dividing humanity into artificial (and usually meaningless) groupings, whether consciously or otherwise, inevitably means assigning attributes and/or judgments on said groups. In most cases, this is mild and reasonably harmless, but still by definition racism. So yes, I do, and always will, advocate letting this particular social construct go the way of the dinosaurs.

Advocating non-racists ignore it is advocating letting racists go unopposed. The concept won't magically vanish

And your pop psychology is not a convincing argument. I'm not seeing any evidence from you that you know anything about why racists believe and act as they do. I see an utterly baseless assumption that seems to imply you don't realize they v an honestly hold those beliefs. Sorry if I don't think any reasonable person would buy your comparison to trolls

Dijkstra:

Advocating non-racists ignore it is advocating letting racists go unopposed. The concept won't magically vanish

And your pop psychology is not a convincing argument. I'm not seeing any evidence from you that you know anything about why racists believe and act as they do. I see an utterly baseless assumption that seems to imply you don't realize they v an honestly hold those beliefs. Sorry if I don't think any reasonable person would buy your comparison to trolls

On one hand I agree with you, and on one hand I think you are going about it in the wrong way. While we should be aware that racism is still an issue and we need to make sure it doesn't adversely effect anyone, I don't think focusing on race is the way to go. There are very few people who are just completely racists these days, they're a minority in every sector. However, you have a lot of people who are prejudiced at one level or another. I think this may be partially because we've been trained in our society to see people of a different race as different in a way that is more then appearance and partially because we have come to connect entire races to cultural things, which is partially due to us seeing race as more then appearance. The more we emphasize race, the more we give ourselves opportunists to become racist. It can be Whites equating blacks with rap culture(if anyone knows a more proper term for that I'd like to hear it), blacks equating Whites with "the system", or any other set of circumstances.

Dijkstra:

Heronblade:
Pop quiz for you. What is the number one rule when dealing with internet trolls? Here's a hint, it isn't to confront them.

By all means we shall continue to make acting on racist tendencies difficult by law. But most of that work has already been done. The problem we face now is that much of the remaining portion of people who are openly racist either get a perverse kick out of causing misery, and/or see the activity of anti racists as good excuse for their beliefs/behavior. In both cases, raising a fuss is anti productive.

Besides, holding onto the false concept of race is in and of itself racist. Dividing humanity into artificial (and usually meaningless) groupings, whether consciously or otherwise, inevitably means assigning attributes and/or judgments on said groups. In most cases, this is mild and reasonably harmless, but still by definition racism. So yes, I do, and always will, advocate letting this particular social construct go the way of the dinosaurs.

Advocating non-racists ignore it is advocating letting racists go unopposed. The concept won't magically vanish

And your pop psychology is not a convincing argument. I'm not seeing any evidence from you that you know anything about why racists believe and act as they do. I see an utterly baseless assumption that seems to imply you don't realize they v an honestly hold those beliefs. Sorry if I don't think any reasonable person would buy your comparison to trolls

I never stated or implied that no racist honestly believes, just that opposing them directly fails to help the matter. Some people thrive under opposition, others cave to it. The people of the US have been actively hostile to racism and racists for long enough that the latter category of open racists are all but gone. You don't have to take my word for it, just look for yourself. How would you describe the racists that are left? Are they reasonable individuals that might be swayed by logic or appeals to emotion? Are they likely to take legal opposition to their beliefs as confirmation of said beliefs?

Don't like the troll comparison? Ok, here's another one. Stop whacking the hornets nest with a stick and let the rest of us finish poisoning the food supply.

Race is such a difficult thing for me to grapple with. I'm a white American, I've had friends from every continent (other than Antarctica, screw those guys!) and a rainbow of skin tones. Despite living next to a kindly black couple, I didn't know that 'black' was a thing until I was 10. So on the one hand, I really wouldn't mind if all racial assumptions went away tomorrow.

But then on the other hand.

Dave Chappelle and Key & Peele have some of the funniest jokes and skits I've ever seen, and a lot of it is derived from the differences between cultures: funny names, different vocal intonations, all kinds of things. So I'm caught between wanting to be The Outsider and still having those assumptions in the back of my head for comic enjoyment... and it creates a weird, uncomfortable dissonance that makes some conversations really awkward. Not to mention no two people feel the same about it.

It's just super discomforting and I wish there was an easy answer to any of it.

*sigh* I don't know.

Well, I'm a black guy living a predominantly white area, but I've faced little to no serious racism. I get the odd jokes from my friend that occasionally piss me off (my friends really know how to wind me up, although I could just be sensitive), but on the whole, it's like, "meh". If I'm worried about anything, it's subconscious racism. Like, a job employer taking a white guy over you, despite both having the same qualifications, because he'll statistically be less likely to be involved in criminal activity, or something like that.

But whatever. Fuck. People always like to divide each other into categories and then piss on them just because of that. It's been happening since the beginning of time (whatever the "beginning of time" is meant to be). White, black, gay, straight, male, female, cis, trans, middle-class, working-class, rich, poor, Theist, Atheist, liberal, conservative, hardcore, casual, Marvel, DC, Microsoft, Apple, SNES, Mega Drive, Xbox 360, PS3, etc.

there will be a very large socio-political shift in the world when the baby boomers die off.

atm in the mostly white "anglo saxon" countries where the boomers exist as a thing (ie the US and UK) they hold 80% of the wealth and their abnormally large generation dominates politics and public life with their..."opinions"...

while that pending "event" will surly not eradicate racism it will take out a very large societal bloc who...well lets just say they basically are the core of the likes of fox news audience...

"reality has a well-known liberal bias" and we are actually living in a period were a massively swollen and actually not very nice "me" generation is holding the rest of society back.

Sleekit:
there will be a very large socio-political shift in the world when the baby boomers die off.

atm in the mostly white "anglo saxon" countries where the boomers are a thing they hold 80% of the wealth and their abnormally large generation dominates politics and public life with their..."opinions"...

while that pending "event" will surly not eradicate racism it will take out a very large societal bloc who...well lets just say they basically are the core of the likes of fox news audience...

Why that generation? I mean, in the generations before that, the wealth was held by often somewhat dubious folk of the same ethnicity. Surely it'll be much the same for their kids.

Sleekit:
there will be a very large socio-political shift in the world when the baby boomers die off.

atm in the mostly white "anglo saxon" countries where the boomers are a thing they hold 80% of the wealth and their abnormally large generation dominates politics and public life with their..."opinions"...

while that pending "event" will surly not eradicate racism it will take out a very large societal bloc who...well lets just say they basically are the core of the likes of fox news audience...

Oh my god your post is so full of prejudice and assumptions...

You do realize that the so called 'EVIL OLD PEOPLE' you're rallying against ARE EXACTLY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CHAMPIONED THE CIVIL RIGHTS CAUSE IN THE U.S.. THE EXACT ONES. White AND black! Fucking shit man, white people were on the front line of championing civil rights! Stop revising history because it doesn't conform to your beliefs.

ANYWAY.

Just to give some context, my commute to work is about 2 minutes long driving.

I had gotten off work, and flipped on the radio, and what I heard was a string of v arious media outlets saying that, for the Zimmerman trial, because all the jurors were white women (except 2), that it was racist and that there was NO WAY a ALL FEMALE JURY FULL OF WHITE WOMEN were going to convict a white person in the south.

And I nearly punched my dashboard. Because this is racism. It's the belief that one race is incapable of doing something another race is. And in this case this is 'positive racism'. That's not to say the racism is positive, but rather then the ideas are racist but have a positive spin. Black guys have big dicks, asian people are smart, hispanics are hard working, non-white people can't be racist, white people don't commit crimes.

It's not 'reverse racism'. It's just racism. Positive racism is racism, plain and simple.

thaluikhain:

Sleekit:
there will be a very large socio-political shift in the world when the baby boomers die off.

atm in the mostly white "anglo saxon" countries where the boomers are a thing they hold 80% of the wealth and their abnormally large generation dominates politics and public life with their..."opinions"...

while that pending "event" will surly not eradicate racism it will take out a very large societal bloc who...well lets just say they basically are the core of the likes of fox news audience...

Why that generation? I mean, in the generations before that, the wealth was held by often somewhat dubious folk of the same ethnicity. Surely it'll be much the same for their kids.

its not just the accumulation of wealth, the boomers basically have a collective psychosocial problem.

their problem is basically this: they basically cannot measure up to their parents generation (ie "the greatest generation" aka the folks that actually fought and won WW2) via their own endeavours and so instead they fervently hoard as much as they can that seemingly inflates their personal "worth" and/or enjoyment of life. they aren't called "the me generation" for nothing.

and ye that "me!"-ness often heavily feeds into "racism".

they also tend to be "chicken hawks" if they get anywhere near deciding public policy...

and no it won't "be much the same for their kids." kids are generally don't actually "turn out like their parents" as much as they (naturally imho) end out most questioning their own parents positions and besides the boomers (and their offspring) did not have children at a rate that permanently widened the population pyramid.

they are "a blip"...a massively wide blip but a blip none the less.

Sleekit:
its not just the accumulation of wealth, the boomers basically have a collective psychosocial problem.

their problem is basically this: they basically cannot measure up to their parents generation (ie "the greatest generation" aka the folks that actually fought and won WW2) via their own endeavours and so instead they fervently hoard as much as they can that seemingly inflates their personal "worth" and/or enjoyment of life. they aren't called "the me generation" for nothing.

and ye that "me!"-ness often heavily feeds into "racism".

they also tend to be "chicken hawks" if they get anywhere near deciding public policy...

and no it won't "be much the same for their kids." kids are generally don't actually "turn out like their parents" as much as they (naturally imho) end out most questioning their own parents positions and besides the boomers (and their offspring) did not have children at a rate that permanently widened the population pyramid.

they are "a blip"...a massively wide blip but a blip none the less.

Ah...I don't know if I agree with that, but that would seem to make some sort of sense.

Sleekit:

thaluikhain:

Sleekit:
there will be a very large socio-political shift in the world when the baby boomers die off.

atm in the mostly white "anglo saxon" countries where the boomers are a thing they hold 80% of the wealth and their abnormally large generation dominates politics and public life with their..."opinions"...

while that pending "event" will surly not eradicate racism it will take out a very large societal bloc who...well lets just say they basically are the core of the likes of fox news audience...

Why that generation? I mean, in the generations before that, the wealth was held by often somewhat dubious folk of the same ethnicity. Surely it'll be much the same for their kids.

its not just the accumulation of wealth, the boomers basically have a collective psychosocial problem.

their problem is basically this: they basically cannot measure up to their parents generation (ie "the greatest generation" aka the folks that actually fought and won WW2) via their own endeavours and so instead they fervently hoard as much as they can that seemingly inflates their personal "worth" and/or enjoyment of life. they aren't called "the me generation" for nothing.

and ye that "me!"-ness often heavily feeds into "racism".

they also tend to be "chicken hawks" if they get anywhere near deciding public policy...

and no it won't "be much the same for their kids." kids are generally don't actually "turn out like their parents" as much as they (naturally imho) end out most questioning their own parents positions and besides the boomers (and their offspring) did not have children at a rate that permanently widened the population pyramid.

they are "a blip"...a massively wide blip but a blip none the less.

Again, these people you are dismissing as 'racist' WERE THE ONES WHO FOUGHT THE HARDEST TO BRING CIVIL RIGHTS TO THE U.S..

Bentusi16:
Again, these people you are dismissing as 'racist' WERE THE ONES WHO FOUGHT THE HARDEST TO BRING CIVIL RIGHTS TO THE U.S..

i never once suggested black people were racist.

nor did i "dismiss" anyone.
quite the opposite in fact.

Sleekit:

Bentusi16:
Again, these people you are dismissing as 'racist' WERE THE ONES WHO FOUGHT THE HARDEST TO BRING CIVIL RIGHTS TO THE U.S..

i never once suggested black people were racist.

\

Don't be flippant about it.

This is historical revisionism at its worse (or finest, depending at your point of view). You are outright dismissing the entire contribution of an entire generation to the civil rights cause because they were white. You do realize this 'racist generation' you're takling about is also the one that gave birth to the hippie anti-war movement, and the women's liberation movement?

Don't make these massive fucking generalizations ("Everyone in the boomer generation is holding our society back!" is the implication of what you've been saying) and then act all flippant because someone called you out on it.

you're talking about actually very limited participation across the extent of the entire generation and if you think the hedonism of the hippys and "the personal is political" message of "womens lib" didn't have a particularly strong dose of "me!" in it well...

the simply fact is the boomers currently dominate the cultural and political landscape and when they die it will change.

if you think that's just my assertion you are sorely mistaken but hey believe it or don't i don't really care.
its unlikely either you or i will live to see the changes the demographic swing/readjustment will bring.

Heronblade:
Bit of a problem with a simple bell curve model, a large chunk of the 'actively anti racist' crowd are racists themselves, and nearly all of that group tend to be quite good at getting the more obvious racists up in arms.

Can you explain how someone that is actively anti racist can be in fact racist? We're not talking about self identifying labels, we're talking about action.

Heronblade:
Society doesn't need or want that bell curve pulled in either direction, it needs and wants both ends chopped off and cauterized. Racism will cease to exist the moment no one gives a damn about race, and not an instant before.

The problem is that people that may not actively think about race can still perpetuate racism in more subtle, oftenly subconcious ways. Being aware of race and racism isn't perpetuating racism. An active awareness is needed before problems can be addressed.

Heronblade:
That's part of why I was rather... unimpressed by the fact that we have the first (half) African American in the presidential office. People kept claiming that it was a great step forward in terms of fighting racism. It was actually a minor step back in my opinion due to the huge fuss it kicked up. Had no one but the crazies seen fit to even mention that particular aspect of BHO's heritage, THEN it would have been a great victory.

I think it's a milestone, and am happy enough to celebrate it.

People that say "I'm not racist, I'm colorblind" are often times still perpetuating racism.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/10/0421online.html

Jux:

Heronblade:
Bit of a problem with a simple bell curve model, a large chunk of the 'actively anti racist' crowd are racists themselves, and nearly all of that group tend to be quite good at getting the more obvious racists up in arms.

Can you explain how someone that is actively anti racist is in fact racist? We're not talking about self identifying labels, we're talking about action.

The same way it happens with sexism: You go so far out of your way to not come off as sexist that you actually start treating women like faberge eggs instead of as rational adults. You end up trying so hard to accomodate that you actually come off as condescending and end up offending anyway. To restate his point another way, he doesn't want society to pull so far hard the other way that we end up just going in a circle.

LetalisK:

Jux:

Heronblade:
Bit of a problem with a simple bell curve model, a large chunk of the 'actively anti racist' crowd are racists themselves, and nearly all of that group tend to be quite good at getting the more obvious racists up in arms.

Can you explain how someone that is actively anti racist is in fact racist? We're not talking about self identifying labels, we're talking about action.

The same way it happens with sexism: You go so far out of your way to not come off as sexist that you actually start treating women like faberge eggs instead of as rational adults. You end up trying so hard to accomodate that you actually come off as condescending and end up offending anyway. To restate his point another way, he doesn't want society to pull so far hard the other way that we end up just going in a circle.

I agree that correct methodology needs to be applied, and that good intentions can sometimes have bad effects, but I disagree that simply sweeping racism under the rug as an issue of yesteryear and 'not caring' about race is the right way to go.

LetalisK:

Jux:

Heronblade:
Bit of a problem with a simple bell curve model, a large chunk of the 'actively anti racist' crowd are racists themselves, and nearly all of that group tend to be quite good at getting the more obvious racists up in arms.

Can you explain how someone that is actively anti racist is in fact racist? We're not talking about self identifying labels, we're talking about action.

The same way it happens with sexism: You go so far out of your way to not come off as sexist that you actually start treating women like faberge eggs instead of as rational adults.

That's just sexism, though. It fits the definition.

Anti-racist cannot, by the way the words are laid out, result in racism. The second someone becomes so radicalized they become racist, they are no longer anti-racist.

Jux:

I agree that correct methodology needs to be applied, and that good intentions can sometimes have bad effects, but I disagree that simply sweeping racism under the rug as an issue of yesteryear and 'not caring' about race is the right way to go.

I don't think it is either. I don't think Heronblade believes that either, to be honest. I would venture a guess that you two are saying the same thing, but perhaps from two different perspectives.

Kaulen Fuhs:

That's just sexism, though. It fits the definition.

Anti-racist cannot, by the way the words are laid out, result in racism. The second someone becomes so radicalized they become racist, they are no longer anti-racist.

Okay, use whatever word you want. It doesn't matter to me, the point is the important part.

LetalisK:

Jux:

I agree that correct methodology needs to be applied, and that good intentions can sometimes have bad effects, but I disagree that simply sweeping racism under the rug as an issue of yesteryear and 'not caring' about race is the right way to go.

I don't think it is either. I don't think Heronblade believes that either, to be honest. I would venture a guess that you two are saying the same thing, but perhaps from two different perspectives.

You may very well be correct on that point. But having the dialogue is how we sort this all out yes? ;)

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked