Would you call slaves hatred of white people, racism? I'm assuming they did.
Well, I mostly agree with you, except to stipulate that any time someone is singled out for different treatment based solely on their physical appearance, harm is done to the ideal of equality. In the case of Affirmative Action, this is justified mostly by the old saying "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette," an acknowledgment that our imperfect nature generates imperfect solutions.On this subject, I can, though I didn't realize it was required.
I think that racism is embedded in the cornerstone of the United States. For generations, progressive people have tried to push our society as a whole towards something living up to the egalitarian ideal of "... that all Men are created equal." Those people face tremendous push back. But the methods, such as Affirmative Action, do not harm the majority by trying to bring equality, but some people sure as shit believe it is so. I think minorities (in status/class, not numbers) demonstrate constantly how they seek to earn respect, and those who fight for the status quo of an unchanging majority will find any subsection of their numbers to demonstrate how they have not earned anything. They are labeled constantly as lazy, savages, criminals, etc. all due to their inherent nature, never once considering the context that gives rise to those subsections.
The minority (again in status/power/class) cannot oppress the majority. It just doesn't work that way.
So, what were you saying?
Would you call slaves hatred of white people, racism? I'm assuming they did.
Well, I mostly agree with you, except to stipulate that any time someone is singled out for different treatment based solely on their physical appearance, harm is done to the ideal of equality. In the case of Affirmative Action, this is justified mostly by the old saying "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette," an acknowledgment that our imperfect nature generates imperfect solutions.
I'm not sure if you are willfully misapprehending my words, but since you were gracious enough to engage in dialogue, I'll try again. There is a lot of hate out there for the generic "white man," the imputation being that those physical characteristics automatically denote racism, no matter what such an individual has done in their life. If you can't see that judging a person based on their sex and color is prejudice, we ought to stop now. If you agree that it represents prejudice, but all white men bear collective guilt for the actions of their forebears and for other people that look like them, then maybe we are getting somewhere.
Collective guilt is sheer lunacy.
Each person should be judged only by his or her personal individual actions.
In your example, the amount taken can be easily quantified.So if my parents robbed you and then gave that money to me you have no right to get your money back. After all, I should only be judged by my individual actions and I did nothing wrong to you so what right do you have to take my money?
In your example, the amount taken can be easily quantified.
As explained to others, I meet you at your level. Step up your own game and I will meet you there.Thanks for your opinion, but you aren't that important to me. Your words mean nothing. Next time try to contribute so we can have a debate. If you are able to do such things.
Here's the thing, when a white person responds to the general idea that white people are oppressors with a "NOT ME! THAT'S RACIST!" then they're not displaying any amount of thoughtfulness or compassion. They're too self-absorbed to consider that maybe they should be an ally to people of color and accept the truth in their hostility. You don't think they have a right to be hostile? Okay, that's an opinion you can have. But to me the real analogy is to people who say that there are a lot of false accusations we need to worry about in the #MeToo movement. Like those concerns outweigh the overall injustice that is trying to be addressed. It's fucking pathetic and whiny and entitled. It is the "equality feels like oppression" of another movement towards justice.Well, I mostly agree with you, except to stipulate that any time someone is singled out for different treatment based solely on their physical appearance, harm is done to the ideal of equality. In the case of Affirmative Action, this is justified mostly by the old saying "You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette," an acknowledgment that our imperfect nature generates imperfect solutions.
I'm not sure if you are willfully misapprehending my words, but since you were gracious enough to engage in dialogue, I'll try again. There is a lot of hate out there for the generic "white man," the imputation being that those physical characteristics automatically denote racism, no matter what such an individual has done in their life. If you can't see that judging a person based on their sex and color is prejudice, we ought to stop now. If you agree that it represents prejudice, but all white men bear collective guilt for the actions of their forebears and for other people that look like them, then maybe we are getting somewhere.
I don't accept your analogy as it applies to this topic, since in it, justice could easily be administered once the perpetrator and the property are identified. Receiving stolen property is illegal. In the case of potential reparations, we are many generations removed from slavery and a couple from the Civil Rights Act. Determining individual responsibility now is practically impossible, and modern justice doesn't often accept the concept of collective guilt except after a war.So what? Either he has a claim on my property despite me having done nothing individually wrong to him or he doesn't. Which is it?
I don't accept your analogy as it applies to this topic, since in it, justice could easily be administered once the perpetrator and the property are identified. Receiving stolen property is illegal. In the case of potential reparations, we are many generations removed from slavery and a couple from the Civil Rights Act. Determining individual responsibility now is practically impossible, and modern justice doesn't often accept the concept of collective guilt except after a war.
You aren't going to get me past the inability to quantify the amount, identify the individuals responsible, and to identify to whom any ill-gotten gains were disbursed, so we may as well not waste time. Just say you believe in collective guilt and let's move on.Receipt of stolen property is only illegal if you know it's stolen, it's perfectly legal otherwise. For the purposes of this analogy let's just assume I had no idea how my parents acquired the money they stole from him. Either he has a claim to my property or he does not. You appear to be saying that he does have a claim on my property due to the manner in which it was acquired, which I agree with. After we establish that principle we can move on to how to best satisfy that claim but first we have to establish that the claim is valid and it appears that you agree?
You aren't going to get me past the inability to quantify the amount, identify the individuals responsible, and to identify to whom any ill-gotten gains were disbursed, so we may as well not waste time. Just say you believe in collective guilt and let's move on.
Stolen property is forfeit if it can be identified as such, it's in the identification phase where we get tripped up. I feel a little bad I can't be led down that road, I can tell that you honestly believe what you are saying, and I respect that.Clearly you believe in collective guilt as well as you’re perfectly fine with taking my legally acquired property and giving it to someone else because they were wronged by a relative of mine despite the fact that I did nothing wrong personally.
Thoughtfulness, compassion, hostility, whininess, these are all feelings which have validity. I realize that my views may not properly conform to how many think I should feel; sometimes it's beyond me to look compassionate and be rational at the same time.Here's the thing, when a white person responds to the general idea that white people are oppressors with a "NOT ME! THAT'S RACIST!" then they're not displaying any amount of thoughtfulness or compassion. They're too self-absorbed to consider that maybe they should be an ally to people of color and accept the truth in their hostility. You don't think they have a right to be hostile? Okay, that's an opinion you can have. But to me the real analogy is to people who say that there are a lot of false accusations we need to worry about in the #MeToo movement. Like those concerns outweigh the overall injustice that is trying to be addressed. It's fucking pathetic and whiny and entitled. It is the "equality feels like oppression" of another movement towards justice.
Dont worry about that racially charged murder, black people are immune from committing racism. He is just expressing his racially charged anger about being a victim in the most constructive way possible.
Its also ok that he robbed that white family at gunpoint just because its part of his past due reparations that all whites are obligated to pay to black people. If it wasnt for the systematic inequality he would have had a better education and a better job and would just own all that stuff anyways.
Finally its ok that he raped the white girl, after all if it wasnt for hundreds of years of slavery and oppression, he would be rich and powerful, and she would just want to be with him anyway.
The 27% of hate crimes in the US in 2017 committed by black people arent really hate crimes afterall, because black people are immune to being racist, because they can't possibly think that they are racially superior.
NEWSFLASH IDIOT.
Racism isnt about superiority, its about hate because of race. Black people can hate white people the same as white people can hate black people.
RACISM = RACISM = RACISM no matter who commits it.
Stolen property is forfeit if it can be identified as such, it's in the identification phase where we get tripped up.
I feel a little bad I can't be led down that road, I can tell that you honestly believe what you are saying, and I respect that.
The thing about collective guilt is that it's unconditional. The way it works is that if you are in group x, then you are guilty regardless. But you are attaching conditions to the guilt, so already the concept of collective guilt has problems to you. That said, I have a great level of respect for the way you articulated the point.With regards to collective guilt, and to those among you who believe that you are free of any guilt associated with the racial tensions in this country. If you have, or will vote for any elected official who would choose to not "rock the boat" and stay out of race related issues, and not stand for the minorities of this nation that are systematically oppressed, the guilt is no longer collective, you own that shit now.
While your family may have never oppressed any POC, as long as you support those who are too afraid to enact policies or mandates at the local and state level (arguably the most important due to control over local and state police/justice systems) you own the guilt personally.
The reason we can't stop talking about race and just "get over it" is because lots of people think that we can just pretend that race doesn't exist while completely ignoring the fact that they have representatives and officials who do not care, or behave as if they don't care, about improving the lives of the POC in their communities. In order to move the conversation to the next stage where we can actually start to ignore racial divides, we have to start holding those in our government accountable for their lack of actions with regard to healing the divide in this nation. Fence sitters and well wishers are bigger enemies of true progress than the klansman or the neo-nazi. Valuing order and the status quo over conflict towards progress makes you guilty. Start owning it.
"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice " - MLK
Still just as true today as it was then.
Racial bigotry based on the belief that one's own race is superior is LITERALLY THE VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM.
Now, I know. Your poor uneducated and simple mind has trouble with such linguistic minutiae (that means little details) and you try to simplify everything.
rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
Newsflash, idiot. It is possible to hate your oppressor and display bigotry toward your oppressor's race/class/sex and not be racist/classist/sexist.
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
Why? Because there is no belief in racial superiority driving that bias. Racial resentment is not racism any more than caste resentment is classism.
I don't believe you have shown that yet. It may be that a better analogy is in order, but I am trying to work in between postings and can't really come up with anything. But look up "possession of stolen property" and you'll see that the remedy is individual, specific, and has nothing at all to do with collective justice.We aren’t tripped up at all, I’m being punished by losing my lawfully acquired property because someone else committed a crime. It’s the definition of collective punishment and you endorse it.
I don't believe you have shown that yet. It may be that a better analogy is in order, but I am trying to work in between postings and can't really come up with anything. But look up "possession of stolen property" and you'll see that the remedy is individual, specific, and has nothing at all to do with collective justice.
Stolen property is forfeit if it can be identified as such, it's in the identification phase where we get tripped up. I feel a little bad I can't be led down that road, I can tell that you honestly believe what you are saying, and I respect that.
The unfortunate loop of being poor leads to you becoming a criminal, which results in your offspring growing up poor and then becoming a criminal is not exclusively a black problem, that spans the borders of all races...
Even if we eliminated 100% of all racism today, socio-economic classes would still persist. There would still be poor people, some of which would undoubtedly be black, and many of those poor will still continue to perpetuate the cycle.
Hate Crimes and Racism is a solvable problem, but However since Strasserism is just as evil as white nationalism, solving inequality is not quite so easy.
Given that maintaining a meritocracy where each man is worth to society that which he is able to contribute is still a desired outcome, how would you proceed?
I dont assume that we are living in a meritocracy, I observe it. It is literally manifested itself as fact around all of us.
Nope! I grew up in an area with a low concentration of minorities, and the ones that were present were as well off as everyone else in the area. This might be regionally true, but its not true everywhere.
I've already explained this.
Affirmative action does not combat racism, it's just as misguidedly racist as the problem it is attempting to solve. Why? Because affirmative action is Anti-White Pro-Black. The only way to solve racism is to be pro black, without being anti-white. the final ultimate solution must be RACE BLIND. Any policy which favors 1 race over any other, for any reason, even if well-intentioned, will never create racial harmony.
You must create a situation where 2 exactly equal candidates will have sometimes the white guy wins and sometimes the black guy wins. And both must be equally acceptable. Affirmative action says that in the case of 2 equal candidates, always choose the black one. That is not racially blind, that's preferential treatment. Black preferential treatment (AKA Affirmative action) will never bring about the desired result.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Thats true of ALL poor, minority or not. Since Systemic inequality is not in and of itself racism, victims of systemic inequality have not necessarily been personally subjected to racism. Finally, many of the "racism" recent people have been exposed to, absolutely they were wronged in some fashion, possibly by a white person... but unless it was Racially Motivated its not racism.
All poor should have to work equally hard, but all poor should have to work harder. Give them all 2/3/4 jobs and let them earn their way out of poverty the way everyone else has. Those who fail still fail on their own merits.
once you decouple systematic inequality from racism, racism can be solved in days.
The new data shows that 21 percent of black men raised at the very bottom were incarcerated, according to a snapshot of a single day during the 2010 census. Black men raised in the top 1 percent — by millionaires — were as likely to be incarcerated as white men raised in households earning about $36,000.
A general assumption of the moderate conventional wisdom over the last half century is that average black performance is dragged down by specific impediments, such as poverty, crime, culture of poverty, parental taciturnity, lead paint, or whatever. One would therefore expect blacks without those impediments to score equal with whites.
But a close inspection of the social science data suggests that the world doesn’t really look like that. For example, above is the 2013 federal National Assessment of Educational Progress scores for 12th graders in Reading. Blacks who are the children of college graduates average 274, which is the same as whites who are the children of high school dropouts.
The Math Gap is the same
A group that is suing Harvard University is demanding that it publicly release admissions data on hundreds of thousands of applicants, saying the records show a pattern of discrimination against Asian-Americans going back decades.
The group was able to view the documents through its lawsuit, which was filed in 2014 and challenges Harvard’s admissions policies. The plaintiffs said in a letter to the court last week that the documents were so compelling that there was no need for a trial, and that they would ask the judge to rule summarily in their favor based on the documents alone.
You may have me confused with someone else, but if one believes in the concept of collective guilt and of full reparations, then yes, that would be a logically consistent conclusion, wouldn't it?So...all of our land now goes back to Native Americans?