djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 21, 2015 10:25:59 GMT -5
i object strenuously to the idea that there is some absolute "history" that exists outside of the social construct. therefore, history is a byproduct of the society in which it is written. particularly, in the US, history is a product of the class that runs the country: predominantly white, upper class, politically involved, and predominantly male. so, if you are hoping to see a study of worker's rights, unionization, the life of a slave on the plantation, a history of poverty among the working class, a study on the influence of migrant workers on the textile industry, etc, you can bloody well forget it. that is a special niche of history that is only for the PhD theses. however, if you are OUTSIDE OF THIS COUNTRY, the objectivity is much better. you are not writing through the lens of the New York Times, in all likelihood. nor are you subjected to the bias that we are really cool, virtuous, and always right. I disagree- there is an absolute history- which I believe can be determined based on taking into consideration of those factors.
Not saying it is written or available- but that it does exist. An event happens- and there maybe 50 interpretations of it- like the great flood- but I think there is enough data to make some conclusions. But sure as shit there is a huge layer of bias and bullshit that has to be plowed through.
And I would like to support your point- there is a lot to be learned about our country from outside our country. That goes for the news especially- IMO if people are not looking at outside sources then they are just taking the local message as fact. If that is not seen as a problem I would ask those folks if they think the North Koreans should rely on their local news.
ok, you have me, here. i meant absolute history in terms of what is actually written.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 21, 2015 10:27:07 GMT -5
you don't have the foggiest idea of what Black History teaches, do you? Do you? I took this as a challenge to see if my understanding was flawed. A simple search provides countless BHM teaching resources. Two of the most comprehensive and most popular links returned by the search are found here and here. Other links have virtually identical content. Across the two sites, the breakdown of materials is roughly as follows: - Black Slavery (25%)
- Civil Rights Movement & MLK (45%)
- Jazz, Soul, Gospel Music (10%)
- Kwanzaa (5%)
- Black Inventors (5%)
- Other (10%)
So, here are some pertinent questions: - Do US gradeschool curricula not already cover slavery, abolition, segregation, and the US civil rights movement in reasonable detail?
As I've pointed out, Canadian curricula include these topics disproportionately to their practical significance to Canadians. We don't learn about the Roman Empire, East Asian history, WWI/WWII (in any significant detail), the history of the greater British Commonwealth, Middle Eastern history, South American history. Above all these, we learn about slavery in the US and Canada, the Civil Rights Movement, segregation, and abolitionism in our school curriculum.
Is this not also the case for US schools?
- Learning that blacks "invented" jazz, soul, hip-hop, and rap music, and whites "invented"... whatever it is history credits us with inventing (to read this thread, one would guess the answer is "everything"), helps our society how? Can white people not appreciate rap? Can blacks not appreciate Mozart? Do the origins and originators of musical genres not come up during the normal course of learning music? What conceivable benefit is there to pulling music out of a natural curriculum simply to point out "we invented this, they invented that, we invented this..."?
- Do you not see any negative ramifications to tying black identity so tightly to slavery, segregation, and the sins of our forefathers? Does this strike you as socially healthy? Is it likely to breed goodwill, forgiveness, and forward-looking attitudes in both blacks and non-blacks? Is it conducive to eliminating resentment, enmity, feelings of inferiority? Does it emphasize forgiving past and present evils in the spirit of cooperation today?
I'm not black, and perhaps it's true that I just can't understand, but I can't help but feel that if I was in a visible minority, nothing could possibly make me feel less integral to, less welcome by, and less appreciative of the rest of my society than "[Virgil's Minority] History Month" as codexed by these teaching resources. sorry, but your posts to do not say to me "i get what black history is about". and yes, i believe that i do. edit: i appreciate how much effort you made in your reply, but it doesn't change my opinion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 21, 2015 10:48:05 GMT -5
Do you? I took this as a challenge to see if my understanding was flawed. A simple search provides countless BHM teaching resources. Two of the most comprehensive and most popular links returned by the search are found here and here. Other links have virtually identical content. Across the two sites, the breakdown of materials is roughly as follows: - Black Slavery (25%)
- Civil Rights Movement & MLK (45%)
- Jazz, Soul, Gospel Music (10%)
- Kwanzaa (5%)
- Black Inventors (5%)
- Other (10%)
So, here are some pertinent questions: - Do US gradeschool curricula not already cover slavery, abolition, segregation, and the US civil rights movement in reasonable detail?
As I've pointed out, Canadian curricula include these topics disproportionately to their practical significance to Canadians. We don't learn about the Roman Empire, East Asian history, WWI/WWII (in any significant detail), the history of the greater British Commonwealth, Middle Eastern history, South American history. Above all these, we learn about slavery in the US and Canada, the Civil Rights Movement, segregation, and abolitionism in our school curriculum.
Is this not also the case for US schools?
- Learning that blacks "invented" jazz, soul, hip-hop, and rap music, and whites "invented"... whatever it is history credits us with inventing (to read this thread, one would guess the answer is "everything"), helps our society how? Can white people not appreciate rap? Can blacks not appreciate Mozart? Do the origins and originators of musical genres not come up during the normal course of learning music? What conceivable benefit is there to pulling music out of a natural curriculum simply to point out "we invented this, they invented that, we invented this..."?
- Do you not see any negative ramifications to tying black identity so tightly to slavery, segregation, and the sins of our forefathers? Does this strike you as socially healthy? Is it likely to breed goodwill, forgiveness, and forward-looking attitudes in both blacks and non-blacks? Is it conducive to eliminating resentment, enmity, feelings of inferiority? Does it emphasize forgiving past and present evils in the spirit of cooperation today?
I'm not black, and perhaps it's true that I just can't understand, but I can't help but feel that if I was in a visible minority, nothing could possibly make me feel less integral to, less welcome by, and less appreciative of the rest of my society than "[Virgil's Minority] History Month" as codexed by these teaching resources. sorry, but your posts to do not say to me "i get what black history is about". and yes, i believe that i do. edit: i appreciate how much effort you made in your reply, but it doesn't change my opinion. "Clueless product of white privilege" is still better than "hateful racist", which is how the average American response would characterize my post, so I'll take my small victories where I can get 'em. You guys keep right on doing what you're doing with race relations. See how that works out for you. Best of luck.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 21, 2015 11:08:47 GMT -5
sorry, but your posts to do not say to me "i get what black history is about". and yes, i believe that i do. edit: i appreciate how much effort you made in your reply, but it doesn't change my opinion. "Clueless product of white privilege" is still better than "hateful racist", which is how the average American response would characterize my post, so I'll take my small victories where I can get 'em. You guys keep right on doing what you're doing with race relations. See how that works out for you. Best of luck. i don't think you are hateful in any way, Virgil. you are one of the good guys. i am not going to take up the argument that what we are doing is working great, but i don't think the absence of efforts to make it better is going to work, and you haven't really offered any solution other than that, so i think, unless you do, this discussion is short on fodder for thought.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Apr 21, 2015 11:34:09 GMT -5
you don't have the foggiest idea of what Black History teaches, do you? Do you? I took this as a challenge to see if my understanding was flawed. A simple search provides countless BHM teaching resources. Two of the most comprehensive and most popular links returned by the search are found here and here. Other links have virtually identical content. Across the two sites, the breakdown of materials is roughly as follows: - Black Slavery (25%)
- Civil Rights Movement & MLK (45%)
- Jazz, Soul, Gospel Music (10%)
- Kwanzaa (5%)
- Black Inventors (5%)
- Other (10%)
So, here are some pertinent questions: - Do US gradeschool curricula not already cover slavery, abolition, segregation, and the US civil rights movement in reasonable detail?
As I've pointed out, Canadian curricula include these topics disproportionately to their practical significance to Canadians. We don't learn about the Roman Empire, East Asian history, WWI/WWII (in any significant detail), the history of the greater British Commonwealth, Middle Eastern history, South American history. Above all these, we learn about slavery in the US and Canada, the Civil Rights Movement, segregation, and abolitionism in our school curriculum.
Is this not also the case for US schools?
- Learning that blacks "invented" jazz, soul, hip-hop, and rap music, and whites "invented"... whatever it is history credits us with inventing (to read this thread, one would guess the answer is "everything"), helps our society how? Can white people not appreciate rap? Can blacks not appreciate Mozart? Do the origins and originators of musical genres not come up during the normal course of learning music? What conceivable benefit is there to pulling music out of a natural curriculum simply to point out "we invented this, they invented that, we invented this..."?
- Do you not see any negative ramifications to tying black identity so tightly to slavery, segregation, and the sins of our forefathers? Does this strike you as socially healthy? Is it likely to breed goodwill, forgiveness, and forward-looking attitudes in both blacks and non-blacks? Is it conducive to eliminating resentment, enmity, feelings of inferiority? Does it emphasize forgiving past and present evils in the spirit of cooperation today?
I'm not black, and perhaps it's true that I just can't understand, but I can't help but feel that if I was in a visible minority, nothing could possibly make me feel less integral to, less welcome by, and less appreciative of the rest of my society than "[Virgil's Minority] History Month" as codexed by these teaching resources. overall, your argument (and a lot of the other arguments) seems to be "what's done is done, let's look to the future". Which is fine, but then why have anything on historical record? Let's take out anything on Nazi Germany/Holocaust, the killing and upheaval of the American Indians that went on for centuries, the Civil War, WWI & WWII, etc. I mean it's all in the past, right? There's nothing we could possibly learn from all these events, right? There are no attitudes from the past that might be present today, right? And no, the purpose of BHM or just black history in general is not to make blacks identify with slavery. If that's really what you think - even after all the discourse on this thread that says otherwise (and even if you looked into it yourself) - I reiterate that you either lack the brain capacity to understand the true intent, or you're just stirring shit. Either way, you have no business commenting on this matter IMO.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 21, 2015 11:36:20 GMT -5
Do you? I took this as a challenge to see if my understanding was flawed. A simple search provides countless BHM teaching resources. Two of the most comprehensive and most popular links returned by the search are found here and here. Other links have virtually identical content. Across the two sites, the breakdown of materials is roughly as follows: - Black Slavery (25%)
- Civil Rights Movement & MLK (45%)
- Jazz, Soul, Gospel Music (10%)
- Kwanzaa (5%)
- Black Inventors (5%)
- Other (10%)
So, here are some pertinent questions: - Do US gradeschool curricula not already cover slavery, abolition, segregation, and the US civil rights movement in reasonable detail?
As I've pointed out, Canadian curricula include these topics disproportionately to their practical significance to Canadians. We don't learn about the Roman Empire, East Asian history, WWI/WWII (in any significant detail), the history of the greater British Commonwealth, Middle Eastern history, South American history. Above all these, we learn about slavery in the US and Canada, the Civil Rights Movement, segregation, and abolitionism in our school curriculum.
Is this not also the case for US schools?
- Learning that blacks "invented" jazz, soul, hip-hop, and rap music, and whites "invented"... whatever it is history credits us with inventing (to read this thread, one would guess the answer is "everything"), helps our society how? Can white people not appreciate rap? Can blacks not appreciate Mozart? Do the origins and originators of musical genres not come up during the normal course of learning music? What conceivable benefit is there to pulling music out of a natural curriculum simply to point out "we invented this, they invented that, we invented this..."?
- Do you not see any negative ramifications to tying black identity so tightly to slavery, segregation, and the sins of our forefathers? Does this strike you as socially healthy? Is it likely to breed goodwill, forgiveness, and forward-looking attitudes in both blacks and non-blacks? Is it conducive to eliminating resentment, enmity, feelings of inferiority? Does it emphasize forgiving past and present evils in the spirit of cooperation today?
I'm not black, and perhaps it's true that I just can't understand, but I can't help but feel that if I was in a visible minority, nothing could possibly make me feel less integral to, less welcome by, and less appreciative of the rest of my society than "[Virgil's Minority] History Month" as codexed by these teaching resources. overall, your argument (and a lot of the other arguments) seems to be "what's done is done, let's look to the future". Which is fine, but then why have anything on historical record? Let's take out anything on Nazi Germany/Holocaust, the killing and upheaval of the American Indians that went on for centuries, the Civil War, WWI & WWII, etc. I mean it's all in the past, right? There's nothing we could possibly learn from all these events, right? There are no attitudes from the past that might be present today, right? And no, the purpose of BHM or just black history in general is not to make blacks identify with slavery. If that's really what you think - even after all the discourse on this thread that says otherwise (and even if you looked into it yourself) - I reiterate that you either lack the brain capacity to understand the true intent, or you're just stirring shit. Either way, you have no business commenting on this matter IMO. this is the same argument that the GOP is making. racism is over. celebrate the new, non-racial age. then they make it harder for minorities to register and vote.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 21, 2015 12:23:01 GMT -5
"Clueless product of white privilege" is still better than "hateful racist", which is how the average American response would characterize my post, so I'll take my small victories where I can get 'em. You guys keep right on doing what you're doing with race relations. See how that works out for you. Best of luck. i don't think you are hateful in any way, Virgil. you are one of the good guys. i am not going to take up the argument that what we are doing is working great, but i don't think the absence of efforts to make it better is going to work, and you haven't really offered any solution other than that, so i think, unless you do, this discussion is short on fodder for thought. I make it very clear what I would do in place of BHM in Reply #105. And no, the purpose of BHM or just black history in general is not to make blacks identify with slavery. If that's really what you think - even after all the discourse on this thread that says otherwise (and even if you looked into it yourself) - I reiterate that you either lack the brain capacity to understand the true intent, or you're just stirring shit. Either way, you have no business commenting on this matter IMO. 70% of the teaching resources are devoted to slavery, segregation, and the US civil rights movement, which is what they're calling "black history". Another 20% are devoted to "black music", "black holidays", etc. in the clear context of "we did this, they did that". I don't care what the intent is. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I care about the real fruits of real policies, as implemented, and I'm not seeing a lot of good fruit here. If the only counterargument is that I have no business making such an assessment (presumably because I'm not black), let it stand.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 21, 2015 14:34:33 GMT -5
i don't think you are hateful in any way, Virgil. you are one of the good guys. i am not going to take up the argument that what we are doing is working great, but i don't think the absence of efforts to make it better is going to work, and you haven't really offered any solution other than that, so i think, unless you do, this discussion is short on fodder for thought. I make it very clear what I would do in place of BHM in Reply #105. And no, the purpose of BHM or just black history in general is not to make blacks identify with slavery. If that's really what you think - even after all the discourse on this thread that says otherwise (and even if you looked into it yourself) - I reiterate that you either lack the brain capacity to understand the true intent, or you're just stirring shit. Either way, you have no business commenting on this matter IMO. 70% of the teaching resources are devoted to slavery, segregation, and the US civil rights movement, which is what they're calling "black history". Another 20% are devoted to "black music", "black holidays", etc. in the clear context of "we did this, they did that". I don't care what the intent is. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I care about the real fruits of real policies, as implemented, and I'm not seeing a lot of good fruit here. If the only counterargument is that I have no business making such an assessment (presumably because I'm not black), let it stand. Virgil- would you mind doing it by date and time? i can't bring up the post numbers on earlier pages, for some reason.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 29, 2024 12:56:29 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2015 15:25:51 GMT -5
It does apply. How much Chinese History is taught in "Black History Month" programs/events? How much Irish History is taught in "Black History Month" programs/events? How much White History is taught in "Black History Month" programs/events? I'll grant that SOME female history is taught in "Black History Month" programs/events... but I'll let you guess what race every single one of those females happens to be. And it's not about who can learn from it. It's about who it's targeted to, and what it's targeted about. IMO, this is like asking how much geometry is taught during algebra. Teaching is allowed to be separated into units. Not every subject/time period/location is going to be talked about at the same time. Why not ask how much black history gets taught when your learning about the religious conflicts in Ireland? That makes about as much sense.
Not every class is even going to be focused on black history during February, only if it applies to the subject matter. And honestly white history & black history in this country are very much entwined. I'm guessing a lot of white history gets covered during black history month, it would be absolutely silly to think that black history could be taught without mentioning white people.
Frankly I'm just going to drop it. You clearly have this entire argument built up in your head that doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me, and there is no use discussing it further with you. And just FYI, with this whole argument you really come across as "it isn't fair, they get their own month, waaaah". That may not be your intent, but that is how it comes across when you complain about something like this. Especially with the asinine 'segregation' argument.
What's asinine about suggesting there's segregation when there's provably segregation? Want to drop the argument? Fine. No problem. But don't suggest something that's provably there is "asinine" just because you dislike it. For the record, I wasn't whining about not having a "White History Month" I was just pointing out the hypocrisy and "privilege" that allows a racially segregated "BLACK History Month" to exist. I don't want a "White History Month"... what I want is there to be NO "{race/gender} History Month"s... and it all just be "History" complete and undiluted by bias or racism.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 21, 2015 16:58:00 GMT -5
I make it very clear what I would do in place of BHM in Reply #105. 70% of the teaching resources are devoted to slavery, segregation, and the US civil rights movement, which is what they're calling "black history". Another 20% are devoted to "black music", "black holidays", etc. in the clear context of "we did this, they did that". I don't care what the intent is. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I care about the real fruits of real policies, as implemented, and I'm not seeing a lot of good fruit here. If the only counterargument is that I have no business making such an assessment (presumably because I'm not black), let it stand. Virgil- would you mind doing it by date and time? i can't bring up the post numbers on earlier pages, for some reason. Here: ymam.proboards.com/post/2217651/threadThe relevant excerpt is: An example from my own experience: In one of my gradeschool years (I think Grade 3), my class toured a nut and chocolate factory in Calgary, Alberta. The trip had nothing to do with black history. I can't recall the specifics of what I learned, but I do remember various parts of the tour. I remember having a great time. I don't know if the teacher requested it or not, but part of the tour was devoted to George Washington Carver, a black botanist, chemist and inventor most renowned for discovering a plethora of uses for peanuts and peanut oil. I tell you: I don't remember a blessed thing about 95% of the historical figures, black or white, that we learned about during our topical history lessons, but I do remember learning about George Carver. I assume this is because I was a kid in the middle of a factory where I could see, taste, and touch industry around me, and it was in this organic environment that somebody explained to me, without prejudice or pretense, how a black inventor's work was relevant to the very things I was surrounded by that day. To the best of my recollection, they didn't even emphasize the fact that he was black. They had a stock photo of him, and I had eyes to see. He was just a man and a great inventor. I didn't have to think in terms of "black inventors" and "white inventors", and neither did any of my fellow students. There's no shortage of inventions, events, ideas, architectural feats, etc. that qualify as "black history". If kids are taught history in the context of the modern world, it really isn't hard to show them where and how black people have had influence, and do it in a way that doesn't shove "black identity" down their throats. That's where I'd spend my time and money. Even if hammering away at slavery, segregation, social injustice year after year had no ill effects whatsoever, and we extended it to three months and made it "black history season" instead of "black history month", I say we're never going to get kids to appreciate the contributions of black Americans in that same non-pretentious, organic way.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Apr 22, 2015 1:01:38 GMT -5
I am siding with Virgil is a clueless product of white privilege. I didn't even know there were black people in Canada Obviously they don't play hockey Well shit they do- and they all come from Canada. All hail Bob and Doug!
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 1:48:54 GMT -5
I am siding with Virgil is a clueless product of white privilege. I didn't even know there were black people in Canada Obviously they don't play hockey Well shit they do- and they all come from Canada. All hail Bob and Doug! I've never come across a consistent definition of "white privilege". It seems to be a cloud of doctrines whose general purpose is to make white people feel guilty and black people feel like perpetual victims. I don't feel guilty. And victims or not, I think it far better for people to feel like overcomers than victims. George Carver was an overcomer. It may surprise people to learn that he's famous for the things he did, not for endless lamentations about why he couldn't do it. I guess he must have been high on "white privilege" too.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 22, 2015 3:13:36 GMT -5
I remember as a kid being amazed at the accomplishments of George Washington Carver. But that is kinda the point of Black History Month. To let black kids (and adults perhaps) know that whatever the history is, they can overcome it too. Whatever they have had to face, they can overcome it too. Just like all of the people they hear and learn about during Black History Month. Why does this seem so obvious to me?
And no, Virgil, I don't think you are clueless. I do think you have difficulty seeing things from any but your own perspective. I wouldn't necessarily call it a lack of empathy either (though that could be the case.) You're a very bright guy, and that may lead you to focus on the one perspective that seems most rational to you. You may notice others but you seem to dismiss them easily. Wisdom, however, requires more than that. It requires the ability to examine (and feel) from all sides in order to synthesize a more coherent and integrated whole. From my perspective at least, that does not appear to be a strength of yours. Just my opinion, take it as such or not.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 7:37:13 GMT -5
I remember as a kid being amazed at the accomplishments of George Washington Carver. But that is kinda the point of Black History Month. To let black kids (and adults perhaps) know that whatever the history is, they can overcome it too. Whatever they have had to face, they can overcome it too. Just like all of the people they hear and learn about during Black History Month. Why does this seem so obvious to me?
And no, Virgil, I don't think you are clueless. I do think you have difficulty seeing things from any but your own perspective. I wouldn't necessarily call it a lack of empathy either (though that could be the case.) You're a very bright guy, and that may lead you to focus on the one perspective that seems most rational to you. You may notice others but you seem to dismiss them easily. Wisdom, however, requires more than that. It requires the ability to examine (and feel) from all sides in order to synthesize a more coherent and integrated whole. From my perspective at least, that does not appear to be a strength of yours. Just my opinion, take it as such or not. I aim to be utterly uncompromising when it comes to issues of morality. More generally... yes, I suppose I could be more open-minded. <-- Curmudgeony Virgil is curmudgeony. I don't even strongly object to Black History Month. ( ETA: In fact, if it were a choice between BHM and nothing, I'd side with "let it stay".) I think it's a concept with good intentions that probably yields some good fruits, but is flawed in some ways. It's emblematic of a bigger problem. I refuse to sympathize with arguments of the variety "Walk a mile in [so and so]'s shoes." when they're being used as proxies for either "Recognize that life has made it extremely difficult for some people to meet standard X, hence why not compromise standard X just a bit, defend it just a bit less vigorously?" or "You can't understand what it is to live X's life. We assume we do, or we assume we cannot, but we can't articulate what specifically you cannot understand." When it comes to black/white relations in the US, if we cut out all the euphemisms, doublespeak, circumlocutory language, this is what the majority of left-leaning dogma boils down to. "Walk a mile in blacks' shoes." meaning "Blacks in particular face many obstacles to success. We mustn't rigorously hold them to the same standard as other races. If we do so, we're failing to acknowledge their uniquely disadvantaged status." or "You can't know what it's like to be black. We're either positing this without basis, or with basis but we can't explain the basis to you." You're not going to find me terribly receptive to either argument, and I don't think that's a bad thing. If you want to argue race with me without "let's compromise our standards" lurking in the shadows, and if you can articulate why I can't understand the "black condition" to have a credible opinion on matters related to black/white race relations, then we'll talk. I'll make a special effort to remain open-minded.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,155
|
Post by tallguy on Apr 22, 2015 9:32:13 GMT -5
I don't believe in relaxing standards either, and I don't believe I have suggested that. To do so suggests that people (blacks in this case, other subsets of the population in other issues) simply can't make it on their own without such extra consideration. I refuse to believe that. It also denies the accomplishments of the millions of people who do and have done it. But with respect to BHM it does in no way do that. It instead gives people who may have been inculcated with the idea that they can't succeed a way to see that they can. As I said before, it may not help a lot but it can't really hurt. I don't see the negative impacts of instilling separatism and inferiority that you and some others may.
With regard to your second objection, I do think it is valid to suggest that I cannot know what it is like to be black or to have grown up or lived with the effects of that in this country. I do consider myself quite open-minded, and I do try to understand a wide variety of other perspectives, certainly. What I think may not in fact be accurate. Would I appreciate a comment from our black posters telling me that I am on the right track? Absolutely. Because again, I can THINK I know something about the issue, but I cannot really KNOW anything about the issue unless I can somehow gain that perspective. And no, there is no way I can gain it on my own.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 22, 2015 9:32:36 GMT -5
If you want to argue race with me without "let's compromise our standards" lurking in the shadows, and if you can articulate why I can't understand the "black condition" to have a credible opinion on matters related to black/white race relations, then we'll talk. I'll make a special effort to remain open-minded. I guess I don't understand how BHM is compromising any standards. And as far as not understanding - You live in a different country, you are white, you have 2% black population. Virtually everything about you leads to not really understanding because you are so far removed from the situation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 9:51:55 GMT -5
I remember as a kid being amazed at the accomplishments of George Washington Carver. But that is kinda the point of Black History Month. To let black kids (and adults perhaps) know that whatever the history is, they can overcome it too. Whatever they have had to face, they can overcome it too. Just like all of the people they hear and learn about during Black History Month. Why does this seem so obvious to me?
And no, Virgil, I don't think you are clueless. I do think you have difficulty seeing things from any but your own perspective. I wouldn't necessarily call it a lack of empathy either (though that could be the case.) You're a very bright guy, and that may lead you to focus on the one perspective that seems most rational to you. You may notice others but you seem to dismiss them easily. Wisdom, however, requires more than that. It requires the ability to examine (and feel) from all sides in order to synthesize a more coherent and integrated whole. From my perspective at least, that does not appear to be a strength of yours. Just my opinion, take it as such or not. I aim to be utterly uncompromising when it comes to issues of morality. More generally... yes, I suppose I could be more open-minded. <-- Curmudgeony Virgil is curmudgeony. I don't even strongly object to Black History Month. ( ETA: In fact, if it were a choice between BHM and nothing, I'd side with "let it stay".) I think it's a concept with good intentions that probably yields some good fruits, but is flawed in some ways. It's emblematic of a bigger problem. I refuse to sympathize with arguments of the variety "Walk a mile in [so and so]'s shoes." when they're being used as proxies for either "Recognize that life has made it extremely difficult for some people to meet standard X, hence why not compromise standard X just a bit, defend it just a bit less vigorously?" or "You can't understand what it is to live X's life. We assume we do, or we assume we cannot, but we can't articulate what specifically you cannot understand." When it comes to black/white relations in the US, if we cut out all the euphemisms, doublespeak, circumlocutory language, this is what the majority of left-leaning dogma boils down to. "Walk a mile in blacks' shoes." meaning "Blacks in particular face many obstacles to success. We mustn't rigorously hold them to the same standard as other races. If we do so, we're failing to acknowledge their uniquely disadvantaged status." or "You can't know what it's like to be black. We're either positing this without basis, or with basis but we can't explain the basis to you." You're not going to find me terribly receptive to either argument, and I don't think that's a bad thing. If you want to argue race with me without "let's compromise our standards" lurking in the shadows, and if you can articulate why I can't understand the "black condition" to have a credible opinion on matters related to black/white race relations, then we'll talk. I'll make a special effort to remain open-minded. i am as liberal a person as you will find and i don't believe what you just said. i think the same standards should apply to blacks and whites. that having been said, i don't think whites and blacks play on an equal field. what do you suggest we do about that?
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 10:17:10 GMT -5
If you want to argue race with me without "let's compromise our standards" lurking in the shadows, and if you can articulate why I can't understand the "black condition" to have a credible opinion on matters related to black/white race relations, then we'll talk. I'll make a special effort to remain open-minded. I guess I don't understand how BHM is compromising any standards. And as far as not understanding - You live in a different country, you are white, you have 2% black population. Virtually everything about you leads to not really understanding because you are so far removed from the situation. I grew up in a city with 2% black population. I've lived in Toronto for 10 years now, one of the most multicultural cities on Earth. Whites constitute less than 50% of the population, and 30% of those are foreign-born. Blacks make up roughly 9%. Attitudes towards blacks are no different here than they were out west. The school curricula here are no different from the curricula out west. As for Canada not being the US: absolutely, I agree. We have nowhere near the same black/white race problems the US does. I sincerely believe some of the difference is attributable to a fundamental difference in attitude toward blacks. The areas where Canada does have major race issues is with Canadian aboriginals. I have had first hand experience with these issues. Our leaders address them in the same ways that America's leaders address black/white issues in the US. Not surprisingly, Canadian aboriginals exist in some of the most wretched, isolated, politically corrupt, hopeless conditions found anywhere in North America. Many of them resent other races, and many people of other races resent them. Injecting aboriginal affairs into the school curriculum decades ago hasn't done a whit to fix either problem. When it comes to social policy, you'll find that the ends--not the means, and definitely not the intentions--are 95% of what matter to me. Good policy is as good policy does. Good intentions and $2.00 will buy you a $2.00 cup of coffee.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 10:29:28 GMT -5
I aim to be utterly uncompromising when it comes to issues of morality. More generally... yes, I suppose I could be more open-minded. <-- Curmudgeony Virgil is curmudgeony. I don't even strongly object to Black History Month. ( ETA: In fact, if it were a choice between BHM and nothing, I'd side with "let it stay".) I think it's a concept with good intentions that probably yields some good fruits, but is flawed in some ways. It's emblematic of a bigger problem. I refuse to sympathize with arguments of the variety "Walk a mile in [so and so]'s shoes." when they're being used as proxies for either "Recognize that life has made it extremely difficult for some people to meet standard X, hence why not compromise standard X just a bit, defend it just a bit less vigorously?" or "You can't understand what it is to live X's life. We assume we do, or we assume we cannot, but we can't articulate what specifically you cannot understand." When it comes to black/white relations in the US, if we cut out all the euphemisms, doublespeak, circumlocutory language, this is what the majority of left-leaning dogma boils down to. "Walk a mile in blacks' shoes." meaning "Blacks in particular face many obstacles to success. We mustn't rigorously hold them to the same standard as other races. If we do so, we're failing to acknowledge their uniquely disadvantaged status." or "You can't know what it's like to be black. We're either positing this without basis, or with basis but we can't explain the basis to you." You're not going to find me terribly receptive to either argument, and I don't think that's a bad thing. If you want to argue race with me without "let's compromise our standards" lurking in the shadows, and if you can articulate why I can't understand the "black condition" to have a credible opinion on matters related to black/white race relations, then we'll talk. I'll make a special effort to remain open-minded. i am as liberal a person as you will find and i don't believe what you just said. i think the same standards should apply to blacks and whites. that having been said, i don't think whites and blacks play on an equal field. what do you suggest we do about that? Absolutely nothing besides making sure we're not part of the problem. Demonstrate no partiality either for or against blacks. Treat one's black neighbours no differently than one's white neighbours. Praise ambition, forgiveness, and stoicism in all men. Condemn apathy, lack of forgiveness, self pity in all men. Be a peacemaker. Defend a friend or neighbour if and when the need arises, only when the need arises. Recognize that life isn't fair; compromise nothing as a result of it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 10:34:17 GMT -5
i am as liberal a person as you will find and i don't believe what you just said. i think the same standards should apply to blacks and whites. that having been said, i don't think whites and blacks play on an equal field. what do you suggest we do about that? Absolutely nothing besides making sure we're not part of the problem. Demonstrate no partiality either for or against blacks. Treat one's black neighbours no differently than one's white neighbours. Praise ambition, forgiveness, and stoicism in all men. Condemn apathy, lack of forgiveness, self pity in all men. Be a peacemaker. Defend a friend or neighbour if and when the need arises, only when the need arises. Recognize that life isn't fair; compromise nothing as a result of it. yeah, we part ways there. thanks for the response, tho. i think more needs to be done than that, and i understand why you don't, so you don't need to explain it.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 22, 2015 10:35:18 GMT -5
I guess I don't understand how BHM is compromising any standards. And as far as not understanding - You live in a different country, you are white, you have 2% black population. Virtually everything about you leads to not really understanding because you are so far removed from the situation. I grew up in a city with 2% black population. I've lived in Toronto for 10 years now, one of the most multicultural cities on Earth. Whites constitute less than 50% of the population, and 30% of those are foreign-born. Blacks make up roughly 9%. Attitudes towards blacks are no different here than they were out west. The school curricula here are no different from the curricula out west. As for Canada not being the US: absolutely, I agree. We have nowhere near the same black/white race problems the US does. I sincerely believe some of the difference is attributable to a fundamental difference in attitude toward blacks. You are absolutely correct & attitudes take generations to change. We are getting there, but not there yet. You basically can't change a personal opinion. If you don't like some race, then very little can be done to change that. What we can change is how acceptable it is for you to make your opinions known, which is basically what happened to this business - people made it known his opinion was unacceptable & in the future business people will probably be smarter about promoting what is seen as a racist attitude. Then in schools we can try to teach kids to be accepting, so that even if they do have racist parents, hopefully they will be more tolerant than their parents.
While we can't kill the racist opinions, we can make it so they don't carry on to the next generation nearly as much.
And what you don't see is how bad some people & some areas are in this country even today. There are people in the south that use the N word. There are still people that will proudly hang confederate flags at their homes or on their cars. Some might disagree, but IMO that is nothing more than a racist symbol. And those are just the obvious people, there is a lot more people that clearly are racist, but more subtle about how they show it.
I grew up in a place with very little racism, I never saw it or knew it was still a problem growing up. But, then I lived in the south for a few years & married a black guy & it was a whole eye-opener as to how much racism is still out there. And that is where as much as you can read about it & have an opinion on it, I think you just don't get it because of where you live & what you've seen. Hell, I don't really think my opinion counts for much on the issue solely because I'm white & therefore still can't fully understand what black people in some areas deal with.
So, while you are right that it is the attitude, I feel like you don't understand that you can't just force people to change their attitudes or beliefs & just make everything better.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,472
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 22, 2015 10:55:02 GMT -5
I grew up in a city with 2% black population. I've lived in Toronto for 10 years now, one of the most multicultural cities on Earth. Whites constitute less than 50% of the population, and 30% of those are foreign-born. Blacks make up roughly 9%. Attitudes towards blacks are no different here than they were out west. The school curricula here are no different from the curricula out west. As for Canada not being the US: absolutely, I agree. We have nowhere near the same black/white race problems the US does. I sincerely believe some of the difference is attributable to a fundamental difference in attitude toward blacks. You are absolutely correct & attitudes take generations to change. We are getting there, but not there yet. You basically can't change a personal opinion. If you don't like some race, then very little can be done to change that. What we can change is how acceptable it is for you to make your opinions known, which is basically what happened to this business - people made it known his opinion was unacceptable & in the future business people will probably be smarter about promoting what is seen as a racist attitude. Then in schools we can try to teach kids to be accepting, so that even if they do have racist parents, hopefully they will be more tolerant than their parents.
While we can't kill the racist opinions, we can make it so they don't carry on to the next generation nearly as much.
And what you don't see is how bad some people & some areas are in this country even today. There are people in the south that use the N word. There are still people that will proudly hang confederate flags at their homes or on their cars. Some might disagree, but IMO that is nothing more than a racist symbol. And those are just the obvious people, there is a lot more people that clearly are racist, but more subtle about how they show it.
I grew up in a place with very little racism, I never saw it or knew it was still a problem growing up. But, then I lived in the south for a few years & married a black guy & it was a whole eye-opener as to how much racism is still out there. And that is where as much as you can read about it & have an opinion on it, I think you just don't get it because of where you live & what you've seen. Hell, I don't really think my opinion counts for much on the issue solely because I'm white & therefore still can't fully understand what black people in some areas deal with.
So, while you are right that it is the attitude, I feel like you don't understand that you can't just force people to change their attitudes or beliefs & just make everything better.
One only has to read anonymous message boards (not this one) and news sites to see words like 'ni@@er', 'k! ke', 'fa@@ot' and the like peppered through out replies. Words the writers may never say in person (or do), but behind the anonminity of the Internet, said openly with contempt.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 11:39:09 GMT -5
Vis a vis the aboriginal issue here in Canada, all of the openly prejudiced individuals I've known were that way either because i) they'd had nothing but terrible experiences with aboriginals, and they'd generalized those experiences to all aboriginals, or ii) they resented the fact that aboriginals were/are the recipients of a windfall of special treatments, benefits, and privileges afforded by all levels of government, seemingly with nothing to show for it.
Some of these were my friends and classmates, and I guarantee you that including units on Canadian aboriginals, US aboriginals, the Metis, etc. did absolutely jack to change their opinions. This was quite expectable. What did the Coureurs de Bois matter if the only aboriginals one encountered in real life were passed out drunk on one's front lawn every second week, or terrorizing people at the local grocery store? And these, my colleagues opined, these were the people the government was throwing money, scholarships, free passes into university, special honours, etc. at?
There was a lot of resentment. Arguments like "you just don't get it" and "i think more needs to be done" added insult to injury as far as these people were concerned.
I'd be surprised if the same rationale didn't apply to many racists in the US. They no doubt resent apologism--which is actually just another form of racism--every bit as much as they resent blacks. The apologist argument doesn't deconstruct the notion that blacks should be treated differently from whites. The apologist argument doesn't discourage people from making generalizations at the scale of entire races. Quite contrarily, it reinforces the notion that races should be treated differently, and it establishes sweeping generalizations (positive ones, but generalizations nevertheless) on the scale of entire races.
It's well-intentioned hypocrisy. I say it's no wonder racists give it the proverbial middle finger.
The only places where I saw any success in changing my colleagues' views on aboriginals were the "organic" circumstances I described in earlier posts. Some colleagues were willing to break generalizations if they came across even a few real, everyday individuals who didn't fit the stereotype, witnessed these individuals succeeding on their own merits, and were allowed to draw their own conclusions free of interference and pretense.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 22, 2015 12:34:12 GMT -5
Vis a vis the aboriginal issue here in Canada, all of the openly prejudiced individuals I've known were that way either because i) they'd had nothing but terrible experiences with aboriginals, and they'd generalized those experiences to all aboriginals, or ii) they resented the fact that aboriginals were/are the recipients of a windfall of special treatments, benefits, and privileges afforded by all levels of government, seemingly with nothing to show for it. You are missing the important learned behavior aspect. Maybe you don't have that in Canada. Here a lot of it is passed down from parents & others, you see racist behavior, you emulate racist behavior.
Or do you think the 4 year old that didn't want to be the black girl's friend had just had too many bad experiences with black people?
My old boss once told me a story about when a kid around 6 years old walked up to him, called him the N word & spit on him. My boss was in his 20's at the time. Do you think a 6 year old came to the conclusion that it is acceptable to treat a black person that way all on his own & it was the result of bad experiences? Or was the 6 year old just angry about all the special treatment?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,120
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Apr 22, 2015 13:15:46 GMT -5
Vis a vis the aboriginal issue here in Canada, all of the openly prejudiced individuals I've known were that way either because i) they'd had nothing but terrible experiences with aboriginals, and they'd generalized those experiences to all aboriginals, or ii) they resented the fact that aboriginals were/are the recipients of a windfall of special treatments, benefits, and privileges afforded by all levels of government, seemingly with nothing to show for it. You are missing the important learned behavior aspect. Maybe you don't have that in Canada. Here a lot of it is passed down from parents & others, you see racist behavior, you emulate racist behavior.
Or do you think the 4 year old that didn't want to be the black girl's friend had just had too many bad experiences with black people?
My old boss once told me a story about when a kid around 6 years old walked up to him, called him the N word & spit on him. My boss was in his 20's at the time. Do you think a 6 year old came to the conclusion that it is acceptable to treat a black person that way all on his own & it was the result of bad experiences? Or was the 6 year old just angry about all the special treatment?
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Apr 22, 2015 13:30:43 GMT -5
I grew up in a city with 2% black population. I've lived in Toronto for 10 years now, one of the most multicultural cities on Earth. Whites constitute less than 50% of the population, and 30% of those are foreign-born. Blacks make up roughly 9%. Attitudes towards blacks are no different here than they were out west. The school curricula here are no different from the curricula out west. As for Canada not being the US: absolutely, I agree. We have nowhere near the same black/white race problems the US does. I sincerely believe some of the difference is attributable to a fundamental difference in attitude toward blacks. You are absolutely correct & attitudes take generations to change. We are getting there, but not there yet. You basically can't change a personal opinion. If you don't like some race, then very little can be done to change that. What we can change is how acceptable it is for you to make your opinions known, which is basically what happened to this business - people made it known his opinion was unacceptable & in the future business people will probably be smarter about promoting what is seen as a racist attitude. Then in schools we can try to teach kids to be accepting, so that even if they do have racist parents, hopefully they will be more tolerant than their parents.
While we can't kill the racist opinions, we can make it so they don't carry on to the next generation nearly as much.
And what you don't see is how bad some people & some areas are in this country even today. There are people in the south that use the N word. There are still people that will proudly hang confederate flags at their homes or on their cars. Some might disagree, but IMO that is nothing more than a racist symbol. And those are just the obvious people, there is a lot more people that clearly are racist, but more subtle about how they show it.
I grew up in a place with very little racism, I never saw it or knew it was still a problem growing up. But, then I lived in the south for a few years & married a black guy & it was a whole eye-opener as to how much racism is still out there. And that is where as much as you can read about it & have an opinion on it, I think you just don't get it because of where you live & what you've seen. Hell, I don't really think my opinion counts for much on the issue solely because I'm white & therefore still can't fully understand what black people in some areas deal with.
So, while you are right that it is the attitude, I feel like you don't understand that you can't just force people to change their attitudes or beliefs & just make everything better.
This is what I think keeps getting over looked in all these discussions. We are not many generations away from blacks being treated differently LEGALLY in this country. I grew up and still live in the south, my parents remember the WHITES ONLY signs. Their black counterparts grew up with those signs. How much trust do you think they had in the whites in charge when changes were made? How much do you think the treatment they got actually changed? Do you think they taught their children to just expect equal treatement and kindness? Do you know anything about what those kids (my counterparts) experienced? I suspect it was not all goodness and light. It takes generations to make those kinds of changes, I don't think we've had enough generations pass yet unfortunately. I have in laws that are still fond of using the N word and that are proud to have a Confederate flag on the bumper/back window. I refuse to let them use that word around my kids and have had arguments over it. I've minimized my kids time with those people because I'm not dumb enough to think they'll listen to me and respect my wishes if I'm not there. I'm doing what I can, teaching my children that people are people and that you dislike them individually or not, but never solely based on their race. Or any other one thing, for that matter. As far as the educational parts.........I recall covering Pochahontas and Sacagewa (neither of which spell check recognizes so I hope I have the spellings right) as helping the white men, George Washington Carver as the peanut butter guy, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and now I'm straining my brain for non white people. There may be a couple I've forgotten but I doubt it's a long list.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Apr 22, 2015 13:35:10 GMT -5
Vis a vis the aboriginal issue here in Canada, all of the openly prejudiced individuals I've known were that way either because i) they'd had nothing but terrible experiences with aboriginals, and they'd generalized those experiences to all aboriginals, or ii) they resented the fact that aboriginals were/are the recipients of a windfall of special treatments, benefits, and privileges afforded by all levels of government, seemingly with nothing to show for it. You are missing the important learned behavior aspect. Maybe you don't have that in Canada. Here a lot of it is passed down from parents & others, you see racist behavior, you emulate racist behavior.
Or do you think the 4 year old that didn't want to be the black girl's friend had just had too many bad experiences with black people?
My old boss once told me a story about when a kid around 6 years old walked up to him, called him the N word & spit on him. My boss was in his 20's at the time. Do you think a 6 year old came to the conclusion that it is acceptable to treat a black person that way all on his own & it was the result of bad experiences? Or was the 6 year old just angry about all the special treatment? Indeed. I know there are men who would hang any black man from a tree if they thought they could get away with it. You're not going to reach such people with any kind of educational outreach.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Apr 22, 2015 14:09:49 GMT -5
You are absolutely correct & attitudes take generations to change. We are getting there, but not there yet. You basically can't change a personal opinion. If you don't like some race, then very little can be done to change that. What we can change is how acceptable it is for you to make your opinions known, which is basically what happened to this business - people made it known his opinion was unacceptable & in the future business people will probably be smarter about promoting what is seen as a racist attitude. Then in schools we can try to teach kids to be accepting, so that even if they do have racist parents, hopefully they will be more tolerant than their parents.
While we can't kill the racist opinions, we can make it so they don't carry on to the next generation nearly as much.
And what you don't see is how bad some people & some areas are in this country even today. There are people in the south that use the N word. There are still people that will proudly hang confederate flags at their homes or on their cars. Some might disagree, but IMO that is nothing more than a racist symbol. And those are just the obvious people, there is a lot more people that clearly are racist, but more subtle about how they show it.
I grew up in a place with very little racism, I never saw it or knew it was still a problem growing up. But, then I lived in the south for a few years & married a black guy & it was a whole eye-opener as to how much racism is still out there. And that is where as much as you can read about it & have an opinion on it, I think you just don't get it because of where you live & what you've seen. Hell, I don't really think my opinion counts for much on the issue solely because I'm white & therefore still can't fully understand what black people in some areas deal with.
So, while you are right that it is the attitude, I feel like you don't understand that you can't just force people to change their attitudes or beliefs & just make everything better.
This is what I think keeps getting over looked in all these discussions. We are not many generations away from blacks being treated differently LEGALLY in this country. I grew up and still live in the south, my parents remember the WHITES ONLY signs. Their black counterparts grew up with those signs. How much trust do you think they had in the whites in charge when changes were made? How much do you think the treatment they got actually changed? Do you think they taught their children to just expect equal treatement and kindness? Do you know anything about what those kids (my counterparts) experienced? I suspect it was not all goodness and light. It takes generations to make those kinds of changes, I don't think we've had enough generations pass yet unfortunately. I have in laws that are still fond of using the N word and that are proud to have a Confederate flag on the bumper/back window. I refuse to let them use that word around my kids and have had arguments over it. I've minimized my kids time with those people because I'm not dumb enough to think they'll listen to me and respect my wishes if I'm not there. I'm doing what I can, teaching my children that people are people and that you dislike them individually or not, but never solely based on their race. Or any other one thing, for that matter. As far as the educational parts.........I recall covering Pochahontas and Sacagewa (neither of which spell check recognizes so I hope I have the spellings right) as helping the white men, George Washington Carver as the peanut butter guy, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and now I'm straining my brain for non white people. There may be a couple I've forgotten but I doubt it's a long list. Growing up in the 70s and 80s, I had a sheltered life. I don't think I spoke with anyone that wasn't Irish/German/Polish and/or Catholic until I started high school. Or riding a public bus until then either. My grade school didn't do Black History Month. I don't recall getting it in hs either but they were both private/religious schools. But CL's last paragraph is pretty much true for me too.
|
|
Chocolate Lover
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 15:54:19 GMT -5
Posts: 23,200
|
Post by Chocolate Lover on Apr 22, 2015 14:18:31 GMT -5
Beth, I sat at my own HS graduation in 1993 amazed at how many black classmates I had. I didn't see them in my honors classes or even the regular classes really. I can't altogether blame unofficial segregation, because I only paid attention to a very small segment of people and mostly focused on just getting through the crowds to go where I needed to go, but still.....I think something was definitely wrong there. It just doesn't add up.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Apr 22, 2015 14:22:13 GMT -5
You are missing the important learned behavior aspect. Maybe you don't have that in Canada. Here a lot of it is passed down from parents & others, you see racist behavior, you emulate racist behavior.
Or do you think the 4 year old that didn't want to be the black girl's friend had just had too many bad experiences with black people?
My old boss once told me a story about when a kid around 6 years old walked up to him, called him the N word & spit on him. My boss was in his 20's at the time. Do you think a 6 year old came to the conclusion that it is acceptable to treat a black person that way all on his own & it was the result of bad experiences? Or was the 6 year old just angry about all the special treatment? Indeed. I know there are men who would hang any black man from a tree if they thought they could get away with it. You're not going to reach such people with any kind of educational outreach. No & you aren't trying to. You are trying to reach their children & grandchildren with the hopes of reaching them before the attitudes of their parents & grandparents get engrained into them.
|
|