Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:49:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 15:32:18 GMT -5
My 10 year old granddaughter has a boyfriend that is mexican. She and others call him "little taco". It is kind of offensive in a way. But she likes him and he likes her and I guess neither are bothered by the name.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,353
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 14, 2015 15:37:37 GMT -5
I think the bottom line is most whites are conditioned from a very young age not to talk about race. It's just not polite, ranking up there with religion and politics as something you don't talk about openly.
I admit, when my daughters talk about people with "dark skin", or "brown skin", I probably don't handle it appropriately.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 14, 2015 15:38:10 GMT -5
I think the bottom line is most whites are conditioned from a very young age not to talk about race. It's just not polite, ranking up there with religion and politics as something you don't talk about openly.
That's a relatively new development, Phoenix. During my childhood there was no compunction about talking trash about other races whenever, and wherever one pleased.
|
|
frankq
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2013 18:48:45 GMT -5
Posts: 1,577
|
Post by frankq on Jul 14, 2015 16:11:08 GMT -5
95% of blacks didn't all vote for Obama because he's black.
Of course not........
And the point is, more that 50% of white voters voted for Obama. That's not a sign of rampant racism. However, this "fine" president we elected twice has done more to hurt race relations that anyone in recent history. I'm still waiting for him to eulogize that white family killed in Washington. And what about that poor white guy stabbed 40+ times on the subway over the weekend by a black guy? Why isn't that a hate crime? Maybe if we just burn a few buildings. We don't need a "discussion" about race. We need a "discussion" of parental obligations, responsibilities, and self determination and respect. We threw money and affirmative action at this for decades. There has been little to celebrate. Until people, and yes that includes a substantial amount of black people, decide to help themselves, there will be problems and animosities. And can we please stop the nonsense about slavery? I think the last person involved with that died a hundred years ago. Most of our ancestors were still offshore........
Johnson was also popular for his push for the "Great Society" which included unprecedented spending on social programs and enjoyed the support of the NAACP. He didn't have much competition either.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 14, 2015 16:28:45 GMT -5
95% of blacks didn't all vote for Obama because he's black.
Of course not........
And the point is, more that 50% of white voters voted for Obama. That's not a sign of rampant racism. However, this "fine" president we elected twice has done more to hurt race relations that anyone in recent history. I'm still waiting for him to eulogize that white family killed in Washington. And what about that poor white guy stabbed 40+ times on the subway over the weekend by a black guy? Why isn't that a hate crime? Maybe if we just burn a few buildings. We don't need a "discussion" about race. We need a "discussion" of parental obligations, responsibilities, and self determination and respect. We threw money and affirmative action at this for decades. There has been little to celebrate. Until people, and yes that includes a substantial amount of black people, decide to help themselves, there will be problems and animosities. And can we please stop the nonsense about slavery? I think the last person involved with that died a hundred years ago. Most of our ancestors were still offshore........
Johnson was also popular for his push for the "Great Society" which included unprecedented spending on social programs and enjoyed the support of the NAACP. He didn't have much competition either. The stabbing in the subway wasn't a hate crime because it was a robbery. The perp robbed other passengers after he killed the young man from who he tried to steal a cell phone. Motive was robbery, not hate.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,497
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 14, 2015 16:38:40 GMT -5
95% of blacks didn't all vote for Obama because he's black.
Of course not........
And the point is, more that 50% of white voters voted for Obama. That's not a sign of rampant racism. However, this "fine" president we elected twice has done more to hurt race relations that anyone in recent history. I'm still waiting for him to eulogize that white family killed in Washington. And what about that poor white guy stabbed 40+ times on the subway over the weekend by a black guy? Why isn't that a hate crime? Maybe if we just burn a few buildings. We don't need a "discussion" about race. We need a "discussion" of parental obligations, responsibilities, and self determination and respect. We threw money and affirmative action at this for decades. There has been little to celebrate. Until people, and yes that includes a substantial amount of black people, decide to help themselves, there will be problems and animosities. And can we please stop the nonsense about slavery? I think the last person involved with that died a hundred years ago. Most of our ancestors were still offshore........
Johnson was also popular for his push for the "Great Society" which included unprecedented spending on social programs and enjoyed the support of the NAACP. He didn't have much competition either. I assume you feel the same way about waving, raising, and displaying the Confederate flag? After all, the last person involved with that died a hundred years ago too.
|
|
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 Jul 14, 2015 16:42:40 GMT -5
I think the bottom line is most whites are conditioned from a very young age not to talk about race. It's just not polite, ranking up there with religion and politics as something you don't talk about openly.
Personal anecdote time. It has been said that when I was a toddler, I spotted my first black person while standing in line with my mom at a subway station in the (very white) city of Calgary. We all know the phenotypic differences between blacks and whites. Suffice it to say I made a huge fuss over the most obvious ones: "Mom! Dat lady is... ! Mom, why does dat lady haf... ! Mom... ! Mom... !" to the point where my mortified mom had to ferret me away to a corner somewhere to give me "the talk" about black people. The moral of the story: indeed it's not something we talk about openly in our society. That's one of the reasons it's hard to sympathize with Mr. Metta's arguments. Colour-blindness is something I was rigorously taught as a moral standard. There's nothing natural (or even rational, some would say) about it. Forget differences in appearance. There are major differences between whites and blacks when it comes to culture, sports, entertainment, foods, history, environmental tolerances, preference of locale and dwelling, economic status, music, dialect, aesthetic preferences, dating and relationships... you name it, and there's a significant statistical difference associated with it. I generally approve of colour-blindness as an ideal, but it is intrinsically a willful blindness to reality. That comes with its own set of problems, as we're now discovering. I particularly resent the fact that it's been twisted into an ad hoc justification for blindness to a much broader range of conditions and behaviours. But this is well known.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 14, 2015 16:47:27 GMT -5
Maybe it's because DS has a black and
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 14, 2015 16:49:27 GMT -5
Damn app!!!
Maybe it's because DS has a black parent and white parent, but he has never oggled or pointed out someone who's skin is different than his. We also live in a diverse area and he encounters all four races on a regular basis. Sounds like you grew up in a super-white area, Virg.
|
|
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 Jul 14, 2015 17:05:18 GMT -5
Damn app!!! Maybe it's because DS has a black parent and white parent, but he has never oggled or pointed out someone who's skin is different than his. We also live in a diverse area and he encounters all four races on a regular basis. Sounds like you grew up in a super-white area, Virg. Calgary is in the heart of Canadian prairies. Thirty years ago it would have been easy to go a full day without seeing a black person. It's still homogenous today, but not quite to that extreme. Think Iowa or Montana.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2015 17:52:34 GMT -5
95% of blacks didn't all vote for Obama because he's black.
Of course not........
And the point is, more that 50% of white voters voted for Obama. That's not a sign of rampant racism. However, this "fine" president we elected twice has done more to hurt race relations that anyone in recent history.
how? by engaging in an open dialog about them? yeah, that made a lot of folks uncomfortable.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,497
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 14, 2015 17:57:06 GMT -5
95% of blacks didn't all vote for Obama because he's black.
Of course not........
And the point is, more that 50% of white voters voted for Obama. That's not a sign of rampant racism. However, this "fine" president we elected twice has done more to hurt race relations that anyone in recent history.
how? by engaging in an open dialog about them? yeah, that made a lot of folks uncomfortable. Isn't thread supposed to be about open dialogue?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2015 18:06:38 GMT -5
how? by engaging in an open dialog about them? yeah, that made a lot of folks uncomfortable. Isn't thread supposed to be about open dialogue? Obama's speech on race, which he made very early on in his national political career, was so stunning, thoughtful, and well done that my good friend, who was basically apolitical before that time, emailed me a link and expressed how proud he was to have a leader that could talk that eloquently about a subject. i agree, actually. Obama has talked very eloquently, and very candidly on this issue- which i have never seen in my lifetime from a major public figure. i am not really understanding how that is a disservice to the race debate.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 14, 2015 18:07:42 GMT -5
i will be the first to admit that it is way more COMFORTABLE for all parties concerned to not talk about important and stressful issues.
it is also cowardice.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Jul 14, 2015 18:12:12 GMT -5
I think the bottom line is most whites are conditioned from a very young age not to talk about race. It's just not polite, ranking up there with religion and politics as something you don't talk about openly.
Personal anecdote time. It has been said that when I was a toddler, I spotted my first black person while standing in line with my mom at a subway station in the (very white) city of Calgary. We all know the phenotypic differences between blacks and whites. Suffice it to say I made a huge fuss over the most obvious ones: "Mom! Dat lady is... ! Mom, why does dat lady haf... ! Mom... ! Mom... !" to the point where my mortified mom had to ferret me away to a corner somewhere to give me "the talk" about black people. The moral of the story: indeed it's not something we talk about openly in our society. That's one of the reasons it's hard to sympathize with Mr. Metta's arguments. Colour-blindness is something I was rigorously taught as a moral standard. There's nothing natural (or even rational, some would say) about it. Forget differences in appearance. There are major differences between whites and blacks when it comes to culture, sports, entertainment, foods, history, environmental tolerances, preference of locale and dwelling, economic status, music, dialect, aesthetic preferences, dating and relationships... you name it, and there's a significant statistical difference associated with it. I generally approve of colour-blindness as an ideal, but it is intrinsically a willful blindness to reality. That comes with its own set of problems, as we're now discovering. I particularly resent the fact that it's been twisted into an ad hoc justification for blindness to a much broader range of conditions and behaviours. But this is well known. Yeah, it's interesting to see how different generations view race. I think my (our) generation has a very different view of race than people older or even younger than us. As mmhmm said, a lot of the discussion of race, especially the history, is more of an intellectual discussion than something I actually lived through. The church bombing of 1963, the passing of the civil rights act of 1964, desegregation in the 1950's, to me, it's more or less facts in a history book. I think many people who have lived it, have different views. Like Virgil, I was taught from a young age to have "color blindness" which is a worthy goal. Hopefully we'll get to true color blindness in a generation or two.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 14, 2015 18:38:23 GMT -5
At least you didn't yell " chocolate people!"
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 14, 2015 18:50:17 GMT -5
At least you didn't yell " chocolate people!" Or, as my dear daughter (right around 1 year old) yelled : "Mama! Whassat?!?" She'd worked up quite a fever and I wasn't able to bring it down easily, so carted her to the ER to be sure things were okay. The doctor was a black man. She'd never seen a black man. She pointed her chubby little finger and asked what, to her, was the obvious. I answered: "The doctor", to which she replied (sticking said chubby finger in the doctor's face): "No! Whassat!!!??" The doc and I both cracked up. It had taken us both a minute to figure out what she was really asking.
|
|
MJ2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 24, 2014 10:27:09 GMT -5
Posts: 10,972
|
Post by MJ2.0 on Jul 14, 2015 18:52:47 GMT -5
I still don't understand how people my age could not see their first black person until 2-3 years of age.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,866
|
Post by zibazinski on Jul 14, 2015 19:07:18 GMT -5
I sure can. This areas minorities are Bosnian.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 11:49:23 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2015 20:33:12 GMT -5
Personal anecdote time. It has been said that when I was a toddler, I spotted my first black person while standing in line with my mom at a subway station in the (very white) city of Calgary. We all know the phenotypic differences between blacks and whites. Suffice it to say I made a huge fuss over the most obvious ones: "Mom! Dat lady is... ! Mom, why does dat lady haf... ! Mom... ! Mom... !" to the point where my mortified mom had to ferret me away to a corner somewhere to give me "the talk" about black people. The moral of the story: indeed it's not something we talk about openly in our society. That's one of the reasons it's hard to sympathize with Mr. Metta's arguments. Colour-blindness is something I was rigorously taught as a moral standard. There's nothing natural (or even rational, some would say) about it. Forget differences in appearance. There are major differences between whites and blacks when it comes to culture, sports, entertainment, foods, history, environmental tolerances, preference of locale and dwelling, economic status, music, dialect, aesthetic preferences, dating and relationships... you name it, and there's a significant statistical difference associated with it. I generally approve of colour-blindness as an ideal, but it is intrinsically a willful blindness to reality. That comes with its own set of problems, as we're now discovering. I particularly resent the fact that it's been twisted into an ad hoc justification for blindness to a much broader range of conditions and behaviours. But this is well known. Yeah, it's interesting to see how different generations view race. I think my (our) generation has a very different view of race than people older or even younger than us. As mmhmm said, a lot of the discussion of race, especially the history, is more of an intellectual discussion than something I actually lived through. The church bombing of 1963, the passing of the civil rights act of 1964, desegregation in the 1950's, to me, it's more or less facts in a history book. I think many people who have lived it, have different views. Like Virgil, I was taught from a young age to have "color blindness" which is a worthy goal. Hopefully we'll get to true color blindness in a generation or two. why is "color blindness" a worthy goal? What is wrong with diversity? If everyone interbred and we ended up with just one race, I think we would lose something. do minorities want that, to not be seen as part of a sub-group or part of their own culture with their own history?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 14, 2015 20:37:29 GMT -5
I'm sad to say that my wife and I have integrated into our "situational awareness" as a couple of white blondes with a white blond daughter, groups of young black people. It doesn't keep us up and night, and it's not an urgent fear or anything- just an awareness. Black on white crime has exploded, and it's being covered up and swept under the rug, but things like the raid by the racist black mob of the Wal-Mart in Macon Georgia for a recent example, have us concerned about the Obama regime's Dylan Roof dream of a race war. They're both sick like that.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 14, 2015 21:00:57 GMT -5
Isn't thread supposed to be about open dialogue? Obama's speech on race, which he made very early on in his national political career, was so stunning, thoughtful, and well done that my good friend, who was basically apolitical before that time, emailed me a link and expressed how proud he was to have a leader that could talk that eloquently about a subject. i agree, actually. Obama has talked very eloquently, and very candidly on this issue- which i have never seen in my lifetime from a major public figure. i am not really understanding how that is a disservice to the race debate. The reality is that had he been a white candidate, going to a church for as long as he did, with a white pastor who said the equivalent message...he wouldn't have gotten the chance to make the speech. In that situation, I see no chance of him beating Clinton in the primaries. It's an uncomfortable reality that people didn't want to discuss. While I'm completely guessing here, I really doubt the AA population would have voted for him over Clinton in the same percentages after that incident, even if the only difference was his and his pastors skin color. Just be intellectually honest and answer a question, what would you have been saying if everything in that incident were the exact same (except skin color) and white people voted for him in the same percentage as AA did during that primary? Would it have been viewed the same way, or would it have been "I can't believe in this day and age that there is still so much racism in our country that a person like this could get nominated?" Let's throw a little more gasoline on the fire and say he was a white Republican candidate and the same thing would have happened? Are you honestly going to say your view would have been the same? Another uncomfortable reality that many people don't want to discuss is that racism isn't a one way street, but too many people openly justify non-white people teaching a mistrust of white people to their kids while shouting down or demeaning white people who do the same. Now I'm sure somebody will say they don't do that, but that kind of goes to the point of the article. It's not just about having a discussion about issues, it's about having an honest discussion about it. I think the author makes some valid points, but he fails to recognize his own bias in the situation. I've already said there is a difference between real vs. perceived racism, and if you expect to see it, you will see it whether it's real or not. Some things are silly, like people claiming if a woman pulls her purse closer to her when a non-white person gets on the elevator it might be because of racism; but if that same woman does it when a while person gets on the elevator, nothing is thought of it. We condition people to think differently about situations, so it's no wonder why some people see racism as so rampant. It's like somebody with PTSD seeing danger everywhere, even when it really doesn't exist.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Jul 14, 2015 21:02:18 GMT -5
I did qualify that with "that I have met." I was only speaking from my personal experience, which is all I can really do. And no, none of the white conservatives I know have ever acknowledged there is still a problem with race in this country. They tend to drag out examples similar to my brothers. They don't acknowledge that racism exist at all or they don't agree that it exist as much as you believe it to exist?
|
|
grumpyhermit
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jul 12, 2012 12:04:00 GMT -5
Posts: 1,432
|
Post by grumpyhermit on Jul 14, 2015 21:38:30 GMT -5
I did qualify that with "that I have met." I was only speaking from my personal experience, which is all I can really do. And no, none of the white conservatives I know have ever acknowledged there is still a problem with race in this country. They tend to drag out examples similar to my brothers. They don't acknowledge that racism exist at all or they don't agree that it exist as much as you believe it to exist? I'll be honest, I don't really engage in frank conversations about racial inequality in this country with people that I know I am not going to see eye to eye on. The conservatives in question, the ones I referenced, are not people that I can have a meaningful debate with, not and maintain any type of civil relationship (and since they largely family members - I need to maintain some semblance of civility). They have made other comments to me, that frankly, were blatantly racist, so whether or not they agree racism is still a problem or not is immaterial to me.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 15, 2015 7:10:52 GMT -5
www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/white-until-proven-black-imagining-race-in-hunger-games Alana’s tweet was not the most offensive or nakedly racist of the bunch (that award could go to Cliff Kigar, who dropped the N-bomb, or to @gagasalexander, who complained of “some ugly little girl with nappy…hair.”) “Kk call me racist but when I found out rue was black her death wasn’t as sad,”
“I was pumped about the Hunger Games. Until I learned that a black girl was playing Rue,” wrote @johnnyknoxiv
It wasn't that white people couldn't handle black actors. It's that they had read the book and in their minds thought of Rue as a little white girl, and were disturbed by the fact that they used a little black girl (which was how the author described Rue in the book). “Awkward moment when Rue is some black girl and not the little blonde innocent girl you pictureNotice how the author of that last one thought Rue was a 'little blonde innocent girl' and was dissappointed she was played by 'some black girl.' Kind of like how the author in the initial post talks about white men who mass murder people being described as mentally ill, while black men who mass murder people are called thugs. I'm not saying all white people are like this, I'm pointing out that the author of the article is not wrong in claiming that their continues to be an underlying racism in this country. Who the heck are "@gagasalexander" and "@johnnyknoxiv"? They're tweeting twits among the hundred million tweeting twitters plugging up the Internet with whatever detritus crosses their minds. I slogged through that entire article and found not one attempt to quantify what fraction of tweeters (let alone citizens) the comments represent. The "Hunger Games Tweets" site it references is a disaster. If you can find anything remotely resembling analysis there, point it out to me. I see the same phenomenon on YouTube comments. They're totally uncensored. Any video where ethnicity is even remotely a factor is chock full of anti-black, anti-white, anti-racism, anti-anti-racism flamefests between ten-year-old kids. The only difference here is that some Torontonian suddenly clued into the fact that more than x% of the English-speaking world has strong misgivings about black people, and that x > 0.00001, which is the sum of what can be concluded based on a few hundred or even a few thousand tweets since 2011. Personally I'm guessing that x is a lot bigger than 0.0001, and that still doesn't prove it's a significant problem. If the news sites (CNN, the New Yorker, "Buzzfeed", "Jezebel", et al.) carrying the story aren't bothering to quantify the extent of the problem--and I'm willing to bet diamonds to dollars they aren't--then screw what they have to say. They're mongering a contentious issue they know will drive traffic to their sites, not caring whether it's even halfway significant, and citing "tweets" because they can't be bothered to do any actual research. Sorry I didn't know I had to provide a statistical analysis of every article I reference on this board. My point is just this - yes the blatant forms of racism are gone. Yes things have improved tremendously since the times when we had black and white bathrooms, and blacks had to go to the back door of a restaurant to eat. But as the person who wrote the article stated, because overt racism is gone and because we have a black president doesn't mean racism is gone. If it was truly dead, we wouldn't have twitter idiots posting such stupid comments. Same thing with sexism, and ageism, and a lot of other isms that we use to judge each other. Possibly it's just human nature to classify other human beings into neat little categories and then attach tags to them - 'liberal', 'hispanic', 'middle aged', 'gay' and attached to those tags are our own personal baggage of feelings. Maybe it's impossible for humans not to form snap judgements about other humans based on their race, religion, sex, age, etc. Humans do love to sort things into groups, and it is easier to fall back on sterotypes rather than invest time and effort into actually getting to know every other human being on this planet. Maybe we're just stuck with all the -isms.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,896
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 15, 2015 7:38:21 GMT -5
I did qualify that with "that I have met." I was only speaking from my personal experience, which is all I can really do. And no, none of the white conservatives I know have ever acknowledged there is still a problem with race in this country. They tend to drag out examples similar to my brothers. They don't acknowledge that racism exist at all or they don't agree that it exist as much as you believe it to exist? I live in the South in a very rural and very evangelical, conservative little town. I avoid discussing any topics that I know will cause animosity IRL, but on a few occasions some have complained in my presence about blacks getting free government money and being catered to all the time, and the only racism present now is the oppression of white males. I'm sure this isn't the feeling of all the conservatives I live around, probably just the noisiest ones. Which is very ironic, because our little county, which is 99 percent white, is the poorest in the state with the largest percentage of people on welfare, getting food stamps, using the school lunch program, etc. Somehow all those benefits aren't the same 'free' money that the blacks in the cities are living high on. I never say anything, not where I live and not where I work (also a very conservative, evangelical work place). My goal is to live and work with everyone else peacefully and not make waves. But maybe I'm exactly what's wrong with the country. Maybe next time one of my neighbors makes those kinds of comments I should point out that the high meth production and meth usage in our area might be the cause of a lot of our problems, not anonymous black people in some city sucking up all the tax dollars.
|
|
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 Jul 15, 2015 8:57:15 GMT -5
Only if you want Virgil to give half a crap about what @bonehead1234 "tweets". A "stereotype" (literally "across type") is a type (category) applied across a group satisfying some predicate. There's remarkably little separating a stereotype from a norm from a logical presupposition of behaviour. The only difference is that a "stereotype" usually connotes a divisive classifier. With the vast majority of people we meet, experiential assumptions are all we have to go on. We have to make dozens or even hundreds of snap judgments every day, and there's no way they can be based on anything but experiential assumptions, including stereotypes. Stereotypes are a tool that can be used or abused like any other tool. The ideal is more "colour blindness with respect to some things; acknowledgment of reality with respect to others". It ties into the discussion on stereotypes. Statements acknowledging neutral or positive cultural norms typically aren't considered "stereotypes" despite being semantically identical to them. For example, "Jewish families hold bar mitzvahs." isn't considered a stereotype, nor is "Southern towns have a strong sense of community and belonging." From what I can discern, the general push is for "colour blindness" with respect to unfavourable (or sometimes unusual) qualities/factors and "diversity" with respect to favourable ones. This rule excludes whites, for whom neither favourable nor unfavourable qualities should be emphasized. For example, the statement "Blacks love soul food." is statistically truer than "Blacks are exceptional chefs.", but the former is considered a stereotype that should be discouraged (or even dismissed as apocryphal) while the latter is not.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2015 9:56:25 GMT -5
Yeah, it's interesting to see how different generations view race. I think my (our) generation has a very different view of race than people older or even younger than us. As mmhmm said, a lot of the discussion of race, especially the history, is more of an intellectual discussion than something I actually lived through. The church bombing of 1963, the passing of the civil rights act of 1964, desegregation in the 1950's, to me, it's more or less facts in a history book. I think many people who have lived it, have different views. Like Virgil, I was taught from a young age to have "color blindness" which is a worthy goal. Hopefully we'll get to true color blindness in a generation or two. why is "color blindness" a worthy goal? What is wrong with diversity? If everyone interbred and we ended up with just one race, I think we would lose something. do minorities want that, to not be seen as part of a sub-group or part of their own culture with their own history? i think that is part of the goal of the "black is beautiful" crusade. don't ignore stuff- just treat everyone with dignity and respect.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2015 9:57:33 GMT -5
Obama's speech on race, which he made very early on in his national political career, was so stunning, thoughtful, and well done that my good friend, who was basically apolitical before that time, emailed me a link and expressed how proud he was to have a leader that could talk that eloquently about a subject. i agree, actually. Obama has talked very eloquently, and very candidly on this issue- which i have never seen in my lifetime from a major public figure. i am not really understanding how that is a disservice to the race debate. The reality is that had he been a white candidate, going to a church for as long as he did, with a white pastor who said the equivalent message...he wouldn't have gotten the chance to make the speech. i fervently disagree. sorry, i just do. the speech stands on it's own.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2015 10:02:40 GMT -5
Another uncomfortable reality that many people don't want to discuss is that racism isn't a one way street, but too many people openly justify non-white people teaching a mistrust of white people to their kids while shouting down or demeaning white people who do the same. Now I'm sure somebody will say they don't do that, but that kind of goes to the point of the article. It's not just about having a discussion about issues, it's about having an honest discussion about it. I think the author makes some valid points, but he fails to recognize his own bias in the situation. I've already said there is a difference between real vs. perceived racism, and if you expect to see it, you will see it whether it's real or not. Some things are silly, like people claiming if a woman pulls her purse closer to her when a non-white person gets on the elevator it might be because of racism; but if that same woman does it when a while person gets on the elevator, nothing is thought of it. We condition people to think differently about situations, so it's no wonder why some people see racism as so rampant. It's like somebody with PTSD seeing danger everywhere, even when it really doesn't exist. sure, racism is two way. so is sexism. but you have to be completely ignoring the history of these things to miss the POWER RELATIONS part of it. when racism happens in our society, throughout it's short and colorful history, it happened in a way which elevated whites at the expense of blacks. ditto for women. so for white guys like me to now whine about the injustice of merely being called out for that (still owning the privilege, but having to pay for it in criticism) just ADDS to the criticism, imo. we need to grow up and accept that we are indeed quite fortunate to have never had to endure what women and blacks have had to endure, and have some respect and appreciation for their existential pain. once we do that, we can start living as equals. until then, however, we are going to be treated as inferior for our failure to acknowledge it, by some.
|
|