This dodges the point. You specifically asked when a group of white people would be assigned the characteristics of a small group of actors. I didn’t say it was racism, though I guess you could, depending on your definition. There’s your answer – and your explanation simply brings out the truth of that answer.[/quote]
That is not what I asked. I asked when a white person has had a crime committed by an individual used as a representation of their entire race. You just related that directly to “the characteristics of a small group of actors”. NO, that is not what I asked. I asked you when a HUGE SOCIAL NEGATIVE committed by an INDIVIDUAL has been used to describe THE ENTIRE WHITE RACE. What dodges the point by asking this question? That IS the point.
[quote]
Yes, it was. See my first two sentences in the quote directly above yours.
To answer your hypothetical, no. That’s a choice this hypothetical black person makes, just as a hypothetical white person could feel choose to feel that its his duty to live his life as if he is a constant representation of his race, or how someone poor could choose to live his life as if he’s a constant representative of his social class, or some cowboy from Montana could choose to live his life as if he is the representative of all Montana cowboys.
Or each could choose not to. That’s a self-shouldered burden, irrespective of how you think “society” is viewing you. If I travel in France, I could choose to focus on how the French view me as the embodiment of all things and people American, or I could ignore the fact that they might do just that. [/quote]
It isn’t as simple as a “choice made” because the social implications can sometimes force behavior. In that Bob Sapp thread, if the “incident in question” was committed in America, we all know what the backlash would be by many, thus reducing its occurance ever again in a public arena. It is not as simple as ignoring it, not when the individual is not in the majority.
[quote]
They don’t have to know how they’re wrong in order to be wrong.[/quote]
It doesn’t change the fact that many commit this act yet would proclaim that they are not racist.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I paid attention to Kanye as he asserted that there was some racial bias to the media coverage and policy making going on in New Orleans on national television. You paid attention to a non-descript forumite (and society in general) who was trying to show that the crimes committed were related to race. Sounds like selective blindness to me, whose was worse?[/quote]
Since you seem to want to really talk about Kenye West, Kenye implied that the response was race related. Do you have proof that this was not the case? Non-descript forumite? Why is it that no one ran to face off with the views of this “non descript forumite” yet if Nagen calls NO a “chocolate city”, all hell breaks loose even though most agree posts later that his comment wasn’t even racist?
Bullshit. When was the last time someone locked their car door simply because a white kid passed by? There is zero tolerance ACROSS THE BOARD, not just directed at white kids, thus you have no point. When that type of crime is committed by a white kid, the idea is to “generally” reduce the occurance with no direct force applied to the particular race in question. If that were a group of black kids, it would have been the same “racial profiling” that I had the pleasure of growing up with.
Why are you asking me about Native Americans? My grandmother was one, so I am part of that ethnic group as well. You are asking what I think of myself?
This dodges the point. You specifically asked when a group of white people would be assigned the characteristics of a small group of actors. I didn’t say it was racism, though I guess you could, depending on your definition. There’s your answer – and your explanation simply brings out the truth of that answer.
Professor X wrote:
That is not what I asked. I asked when a white person has had a crime committed by an individual used as a representation of their entire race. You just related that directly to “the characteristics of a small group of actors”. NO, that is not what I asked. I asked you when a HUGE SOCIAL NEGATIVE committed by an INDIVIDUAL has been used to describe THE ENTIRE WHITE RACE. What dodges the point by asking this question? That IS the point.[/quote]
OK. Fine. Same example and same point. Each time an INDIVIDUAL white person commits some act of racism or a hate crime, and then it’s extrapolated to “society” (referring to your excellent elucidation of my necessary assumptions earlier, which I was too lazy to list out).
It’s the same logical fallacy - or its mirror (part-to-whole or whole-to-part).
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
Yes, it was. See my first two sentences in the quote directly above yours.
To answer your hypothetical, no. That’s a choice this hypothetical black person makes, just as a hypothetical white person could feel choose to feel that its his duty to live his life as if he is a constant representation of his race, or how someone poor could choose to live his life as if he’s a constant representative of his social class, or some cowboy from Montana could choose to live his life as if he is the representative of all Montana cowboys.
Or each could choose not to. That’s a self-shouldered burden, irrespective of how you think “society” is viewing you. If I travel in France, I could choose to focus on how the French view me as the embodiment of all things and people American, or I could ignore the fact that they might do just that.
Professor X wrote:
It isn’t as simple as a “choice made” because the social implications can sometimes force behavior. In that Bob Sapp thread, if the “incident in question” was committed in America, we all know what the backlash would be by many, thus reducing its occurance ever again in a public arena. It is not as simple as ignoring it, not when the individual is not in the majority.[/quote]
But it is that simple.
This is what you said:
But the bottom line is, race was applied as a factor of crime. Nothing you say changes this fact. So then, when a black makes the claim that he feels it is his duty to live his life as if he is a constant representation of his race, you don’t see this is a wrong doing of this society? How is that? Please, explain this one to me.
He feels it’s his duty to do something. No coercion. Just his projection of his feeling as a conclusion - which, BTW, philosophically robs each individual of his choice of how to view him, because he has already decided how he will be viewed (at least in his own mind) - and his decision to act on it. I’m not implying any judgments on his choice – it’s his choice to make.
Now, on to your Sapp-thread “incident in question.” Sapp could very well have chosen to do the exact same thing in America if he wanted, and chosen to accept the reaction he would have engendered. He’s a big boy - he can make that decision. BTW, I’d like to know whether you think the “reaction” would have come most strongly from the majority, or minority, of society here in America?
Circumstances don’t take away choice except in the most extreme circumstances – the “do this or I kill you” hypothetical.
And everyone in jail is “innocent” too - just ask him and he’ll tell you…
Perception isn’t reality. Claims aren’t reality. Sometimes they need to be acted upon, but that doesn’t make them correct.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
OK. Fine. Same example and same point. Each time an INDIVIDUAL white person commits some act of racism or a hate crime, and then it’s extrapolated to “society” (referring to your excellent elucidation of my necessary assumptions earlier, which I was too lazy to list out).
It’s the same logical fallacy - or its mirror (part-to-whole or whole-to-part).[/quote]
Has racism been defined as a “crime”? Discussing stereotypes and general views in society isn’t even discussing direct criminal accusations even though it can lead to them. None of that attributes an act directly with only one specific race because racism can be seen in society from other ethnic groups as well…like me being followed around an asian owned convenient store. That has nothing to do with only “white actions” even though it is based on the views of “society”, so you don’t have a point with that one. I give you credit for a good try, but it didn’t hit the mark.
[quote]
But it is that simple.
This is what you said:
But the bottom line is, race was applied as a factor of crime. Nothing you say changes this fact. So then, when a black makes the claim that he feels it is his duty to live his life as if he is a constant representation of his race, you don’t see this is a wrong doing of this society? How is that? Please, explain this one to me.
He feels it’s his duty to do something. No coercion. Just his projection of his feeling as a conclusion - which, BTW, philosophically robs each individual of his choice of how to view him, because he has already decided how he will be viewed (at least in his own mind) - and his decision to act on it. I’m not implying any judgments on his choice – it’s his choice to make.[/quote]
This is false. I know for a fact, because I am told weekly, that there have been no other black doctors on my base in quite a while…at least none who are not contract (meaning they work in the military but are not military). Why do you think I am told this so often by random patients, most speaking of it as if they are happy to see it but that it is rare? What do you think the perception would be if the one minority in such a long time made a huge mistake? I didn’t make the choice to think this way. I am faced with it by the mentality of others. Choosing to ignore that more eyes are on me would lead to me not realizing how important the steps that I make are. None of this was a choice made but are the pressures of the job. You can’t comprehend it because you have never had to deal with it on any level similar. I can’t go to work wearing the wrong colored under shirt. While others (due to being less “visible”) can get away with it, there is no way I could ever do that even once. Are you saying it is my choice for that to be the case? My office-mate is a puerto-rican doctor. We get along like real friends. He is often late to work. Do you know how many times he has been called on it? Not once. I went out to my car once before clinic started. I was seen by someone who was NOT my supervisor coming back into the office. I was called into a meeting for being “late”…even though I wasn’t. Now, is it just my choice to make sure I am never late? For the record, I haven’t been late to work once in two and a half years. I am usually there before anyone else.
[quote]
Now, on to your Sapp-thread “incident in question.” Sapp could very well have chosen to do the exact same thing in America if he wanted, and chosen to accept the reaction he would have engendered. He’s a big boy - he can make that decision. BTW, I’d like to know whether you think the “reaction” would have come most strongly from the majority, or minority, of society here in America?[/quote]
I think the reaction would have played out much like it did on this forum. Ex. the largest voice would initially be from white america with black america feeling as if they now must react due to the perception of the majority.
[quote]
Circumstances don’t take away choice except in the most extreme circumstances – the “do this or I kill you” hypothetical.[/quote]
If the goal is advancement and success, this is utterly wrong. Sure, I could choose to ignore any and all social implications, however, it would surely lead to undoing should I ignore how my every action can be perceived.
[quote]
And everyone in jail is “innocent” too - just ask him and he’ll tell you…
Perception isn’t reality. Claims aren’t reality. Sometimes they need to be acted upon, but that doesn’t make them correct.[/quote]
Regardless of if they are truly correct, perception is very often reality…when held by the majority.
Since you seem to want to really talk about Kenye West, Kenye implied that the response was race related. Do you have proof that this was not the case? [/quote]
I’ve made no claims on national TV. What happened to innocent until guilty? Not saying he’s wrong, just that you should have some evidence to go offscript on someone else’s airtime at a fundraiser.
You didn’t describe him/her/them, yeah, non-descript.
From your description, I couldn’t even find the forumite, let alone face off with him/her/them.
And despite what “most” thought Nagin’s statements were distinctly racist:
It was designed to talk to the African-American community for the most part, not only for here but throughout the country – and to make sure that they understood that they were welcomed in this city.-Ray Nagin
Or was the comment aimed at all Americans equally?
[quote]
Bullshit. When was the last time someone locked their car door simply because a white kid passed by?[/quote]
This is your racial inequality, people locking their car doors? So, once we get people to stop locking their car doors in a racist manner, the problem will be solved?
So, I would only have a point if zero tolerance were applied to white kids? Wouldn’t be zero tolerance, would it? How would you solve it? Be as racist/non-racist as you please.
Right, having NO knowledge of your family background, I’m asking you what you think of yourself. No. I’m interested in opinions of third party rather than the largely black/white discussion we have.
That is not what I asked. I asked when a white person has had a crime committed by an individual used as a representation of their entire race. You just related that directly to “the characteristics of a small group of actors”. NO, that is not what I asked. I asked you when a HUGE SOCIAL NEGATIVE committed by an INDIVIDUAL has been used to describe THE ENTIRE WHITE RACE. What dodges the point by asking this question? That IS the point.
[/quote]
As I recall, the was a whole thread about New Orleads that was abolutely brutal in regards to what was happening with the blacks…And many of you took that to represent the black race.
White privelege certainly exists. From the black men that I’ve talked to, been friends with, or whose books I read, I can tell you right now, as white males, we don’t go through half the shit that they go through.
Every day, they have to defeat the massive sterotyping of their race, from the retards who hate them all, yet listen to rap, to the ones who “Only like the blacks, not the niggers” (apparently there is a huge difference here between them).
Not too mention that I live in one of the most liberal states in the Union, and yet racism is so prevalent here it is un-fucking-believeable- Any black guy committing the crime of DWB through one of rich white towns knows this.
I truly think that as a white male, I won’t ever understand what its like…because when people see me walking around, they don’t lock their doors, they don’t follow me in stores, and they don’t deny me jobs because they think that all white males are lazy.
I’ve made no claims on national TV. What happened to innocent until guilty? Not saying he’s wrong, just that you should have some evidence to go offscript on someone else’s airtime at a fundraiser.[/quote]
That isn’t what I asked. You, in all truth, don’t know for sure one way or the other. You simply choose to assume that it was not a factor. Does this mean it wasn’t?
[quote]
You didn’t describe him/her/them, yeah, non-descript.[/quote]
Weak. That wasn’t the point.
[quote]
From your description, I couldn’t even find the forumite, let alone face off with him/her/them.[/quote]
Now, this IS the point, the fact that these things fly completely under your radar as you focus so intently on “certain issues”.
[quote]
And despite what “most” thought Nagin’s statements were distinctly racist:
It was designed to talk to the African-American community for the most part, not only for here but throughout the country – and to make sure that they understood that they were welcomed in this city.-Ray Nagin
Or was the comment aimed at all Americans equally?[/quote]
It dodn’t need to be aimed at all Americans because all Americans are not being perceived as being excluded from the rebuilding of NO and all Americans were not associated with a delayed response by perception of race.
[quote]
This is your racial inequality, people locking their car doors? So, once we get people to stop locking their car doors in a racist manner, the problem will be solved?[/quote]
This was purely idiotic. The point was, in this society, the actions of others of a criminal nature are used to define a race when it concerns minorities, thus why you can be seen as an INDIVIDUAL, and I am seen as a “black man”.
[quote]
So, I would only have a point if zero tolerance were applied to white kids? Wouldn’t be zero tolerance, would it? How would you solve it? Be as racist/non-racist as you please.[/quote]
What? Are you competely unaware of racial profiling? You missed that in America somehow? WTF?
The issue is largely black and white because those are the polar opposites in our society based on past relations and current perceptions. To ignore this or imply it is not the case is pure ignorance.
That isn’t what I asked. You, in all truth, don’t know for sure one way or the other. You simply choose to assume that it was not a factor. Does this mean it wasn’t?[/quote]
I’m not saying that’s what you asked, the fact that you keep putting words in my mouth is disturbing. Lets leave it at this, Kanye provided no proof, so what he said is far from fact. As a logical result of that I need no proof to discredit the idea and this whole line of argument falls into irrelevant conjecture.
[quote]
From your description, I couldn’t even find the forumite, let alone face off with him/her/them.
Now, this IS the point, the fact that these things fly completely under your radar as you focus so intently on “certain issues”.[/quote]
So what should I do, which issues should I focus on?
So, it is a racist statement?
[quote]
This was purely idiotic. The point was, in this society, the actions of others of a criminal nature are used to define a race when it concerns minorities, thus why you can be seen as an INDIVIDUAL, and I am seen as a “black man”.[/quote]
Yeah, it was idiotic, you start talking about door locks as though its relevant on either an individual or societal level, which was my point. And, you are not necessarily seen as a “black man” (especially here). Once again, what should we, the white race, do or if you think it would be easier/more productive, what should I do?
I’m aware of racial profiling, especially aimed at whites as well as blacks, or would you separate Arabs and Middle Easterners from the “white race”. Or assert that one form of racial profiling is different from another.
And Prof., this was a really key part of my post and one that someone who wants to solve a problem would actually jump on. For some reason, you completely dodged it. What is your solution to the problem of racial profiling? What would the more appropriate reaction to Columbine have been?
Once again, I’ve not said I’m going to ignore the black/white issue. The original article asserts that whites have a problem with perception and that problem manifests itself in them dismissing racist claims. If both sides are calling foul neutrality/impartiality can’t be reached without a third party. Are you saying we should stick to just the black/white issue?
I’m not saying that’s what you asked, the fact that you keep putting words in my mouth is disturbing. Lets leave it at this, Kanye provided no proof, so what he said is far from fact. As a logical result of that I need no proof to discredit the idea and this whole line of argument falls into irrelevant conjecture.[/quote]
Obviously, it wasn’t too irrelevant since you are the one who brought him up in the first place.
[quote]
So what should I do, which issues should I focus on?[/quote]
How about the ones that show your concern for “non-bias” to be a constant, not one that only shows up depending on the speaker?
[quote]
So, it is a racist statement?[/quote]
Not at all, because “racism” implies using someone’s race as a negative while you use your own as a positive. It is a weapon of those in social power given a situation. If you view the homeless blacks who lost everything yet feel as if they are being left out of the rebuilding process as being “in power” then you have some serious mental problems. Counteracting this belief by speaking to these people is not “racist”. To even imply as such is simple ignorance on your part and the use of word games. Do you honestly need the definition of racism posted during every conversation? Why don’t YOU look it up this time.
[quote]
Yeah, it was idiotic, you start talking about door locks as though its relevant on either an individual or societal level, which was my point. And, you are not necessarily seen as a “black man” (especially here). Once again, what should we, the white race, do or if you think it would be easier/more productive, what should I do?[/quote]
It starts with even acknowledging that this occurs, which is what the article that prompted this discussion is speaking about. Instead, you have attempted to act as if it either does not happen or as if you have no priviledge in America based on race. This is false.
WTF? If what you wrote makes sense to ANYONE besides the muddled confines of your own imagination, I will be greatly surprised.
[quote]
And Prof., this was a really key part of my post and one that someone who wants to solve a problem would actually jump on. For some reason, you completely dodged it. What is your solution to the problem of racial profiling? What would the more appropriate reaction to Columbine have been?[/quote]
It isn’t about the proper reaction to Columbine but the proper reaction to any other crime committed by a minority. Are you even comprehending what is being written? No whites were generalized as a result of Columbine. No one began characterizing you as “part of the problem”. That is the issue. The fact that your individuality is in tact despite what others of your race do, while the criminal acts of minorities are often used to describe the tendencies of an entire race. The real question is, why do you not understand this and why does it take me dropping to elementary school level to explain it to you?
[quote]
Once again, I’ve not said I’m going to ignore the black/white issue. The original article asserts that whites have a problem with perception and that problem manifests itself in them dismissing racist claims. If both sides are calling foul neutrality/impartiality can’t be reached without a third party. Are you saying we should stick to just the black/white issue? [/quote]
No third party is even needed. How can you claim neutrality? Are you saying you WERE grouped together with all whites as a result of Columbine? Are you saying minorities are NOT grouped as a whole based on the actions of the most negative? If you answer either of those questions in truth, no third party is needed. You aren’t neutral simply because you keep your mouth shut while it happens.
Obviously, it wasn’t too irrelevant since you are the one who brought him up in the first place.
[/quote]
Right, I only brought him up to clarify your use of the term “looting” with regard to NO.
I hold Morgan Freeman’s comments toward racism as highly if not higher than any of George Bush’s. I’ve heard what Hillary Clinton said at her speech, and what Nagin said at his. I regard his as about equally racist as hers, however, his were made in the name of establishing his perception of culture in a city marred by disaster hers were made as a devisive political criticism, as such I see little to nothing wrong with his statements and percieve hers as a moral transgression. I think she should make ammends to the same or greater degree as Nagin. Is this level of vigilance/line of thinking adequate to get the stigma of ‘white’ off of me or am I still being racist? Or would I have to, as the original author asserts, go so far as to renounce every advantage I have recieved from being white through the course of unspecified familial generations?
Actually, the definition of racism is the elevation of one race over another. It’s not just implied. I’ve looked it up on several occasions. I’ve had to be scared of that word since I was could understand the english language. It’s usually hurled in my direction or at people of the same skin color as me so I want to be clear about what it is and why it’s being hurled. A black man in a position of power publicly issues a public statement encouraging “African-Americans” to take action in the rebuilding of NO. What about the white homeless is he trying to discourage them from returning? I see the exact phenomenon you described. Once again, not saying that Nagin is wrong, just saying that his comments fit the definition and all the tenets you laid out.
Untrue, I’ve been working under the forgone conclusion that it is happening and that something needs to be done about it. So, for probably the last time, I know it happens, what should I do?
Now you’re going back a step. Saying it’s not about the reaction, to me, says that no other action could’ve been taken that was less racist. In which case, there’s nothing I can do except sit here and not understand and not act/react.
[quote]
No third party is even needed. How can you claim neutrality?[/quote]
I’m not claiming neutrality, I’m searching for it.
I’m saying you’re absolutely right I wasn’t grouped with whites as a result of Columbine.
You’re right, to answer questions no third party is needed. But in all fairness, once reparations start being made a third party is required. Otherwise, one race ends up favored and the other disfavored and we’re right back where we started from with regard to racism.
[quote]
You aren’t neutral simply because you keep your mouth shut while it happens.[/quote]
Let me ask you this Prof. are you a racist? Because I can very clearly see your bias toward black men over native American men: A black kid shoots and kills students in a public school and the black race gets discriminated against. A couple of white kids shoot and kill students in a public school and the black race gets discriminated against. A native American kid shoots and kills students in a public school and you’re all aloof. “You aren’t neutral simply because you keep your mouth shut while it happens.”
And you distinctly ignored my interrogations about Arabs and Middle Easterners. Is their plight of racial profiling any less than a black man’s that it should be eschewed without so much as a comment? If you answer these questions truthfully and think about how you would make ammends, you’ll see why neutrality/impartiality is needed.
I’m of the opinion that there are high class people, low class people, ignorant people, rich people, poor people, smart people, dumb people, people with attitude and whatever characteristic or trait you want to mention.
You can slap any color of skin you want on top of the person, the attributes underneath are what defines the person. Those attributes are defined by that person, their parents and the circumstances they’ve experienced.
A very good friend of mine is black. She has some attitude, she’s got some smarts, and she has some class. She even works out and stays in shape. She’s a good woman and a good friend. I coach her on dealing with men and she coaches me on how I should be living my life.
In Canada or during my travels I’ve befriended people of many races and minorities. Iranian, Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Hispanic and less distinguishable minorities. More than a few women I’ve dated were of Native American descent.
None of that matters. The characteristics of the person are what matters. People are individuals, and a good person is a good person, regardless of skin color or nationality.
Life is all the experience I need to figure that out.
Oh, yes, there are assholes of all nationalities and races also, whoever said there wasn’t?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Right, I only brought him up to clarify your use of the term “looting” with regard to NO.[/quote]
Because Mr. West and NO looting are one in the same?
[quote]
I hold Morgan Freeman’s comments toward racism as highly if not higher than any of George Bush’s. I’ve heard what Hillary Clinton said at her speech, and what Nagin said at his. I regard his as about equally racist as hers, however, his were made in the name of establishing his perception of culture in a city marred by disaster hers were made as a devisive political criticism, as such I see little to nothing wrong with his statements and percieve hers as a moral transgression. I think she should make ammends to the same or greater degree as Nagin. Is this level of vigilance/line of thinking adequate to get the stigma of ‘white’ off of me or am I still being racist? Or would I have to, as the original author asserts, go so far as to renounce every advantage I have recieved from being white through the course of unspecified familial generations?[/quote]
What the hell are you talking about here? You obviously can’t even comprehend what is being written so further discussion is pointless. What tangent have you flown off on?
His comments were not racist simply because he was talking to the people who are perceived to be left out of the rebuilding of NO. Racism is not “talking to black people specifically”. That’s like saying telling a group of boys and girls, “boys, could you please stop peeing on the floor in the men’s restroom?” is sexist simply because they didn’t include the girls in the speech as well. That is stupid and you know it.
If you know it happens, then what the fuck is this post about?
Are you high right now? No one said the reaction to Columbine was racist. That was written NOWHERE. Go back and actually read what was written without your “denial filter” on.
Aloof? We weren’t even talking about that shooting. I have to bring up every single shooting in America just to make sure all bases are covered? Let’s not be stupid.
[quote]
And you distinctly ignored my interrogations about Arabs and Middle Easterners. Is their plight of racial profiling any less than a black man’s that it should be eschewed without so much as a comment? If you answer these questions truthfully and think about how you would make ammends, you’ll see why neutrality/impartiality is needed.[/quote]
You didn’t even make that comment. The garbled crap you wrote before does not equal asking if racial profiling should be accepted by other races. No, it shouldn’t. You thought otherwise? I have to mention every race in the country just so you would understand this? You thought I believed that racial profiling was ok for them but not us? Do you honestly think like this? And you survive?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
I have a few questions.
Why is it that when a white person points out things that his/her own race that they feel is wrong and is furthering the cause of racism, they are called an “apologist”? Additionaly, Why is it assumed that they know absolutely nothing about race relations and that they are just making issues where there are none?
Also, why is it when a minority does these exact same things, white people don’t give them derogatory names and it is not assumed that they know nothing about race relations? In fact these people are applauded by the white majority. It’s funny how the view changes when the focus shifts.
[/quote]
Your responses didn’t answer the questions. Instead you used the tactics of ignore and deflect, which has been popularized by likes of O’Reilly, Hannity etc., to rant about the author. Despite this, I would like to discuss some of the things you posted.
(1) What are “traditional white ideas”? Please explain.
(2) Do you really know why black people dislike Clarence Thomas and their ilk? (Hint: It’s not because of them espousing “traditional white ideas”)
(3) The fact that you used the phrase “traditional white ideas” says more about you than you realize.
(1) How do you know that the author has never seen a black person in real life? How do you know that the author didn’t possibly grow up around black people? Do you have some inside information that the rest of us don’t have? Assumptions like this with no data to back it up diminishes anything worthwhile that you have to say.
(2) What is “black idealism”? Please explain.
(3) The fact that you used the phrase “black idealism” says again more about you than you realize.
(4) We all know you have issues with vroom’s comments (and pretty much anything he has to say on any topic), but it looks like you are confusing the two people. I’m basing this on the posts that they two of you are making, not on any real knowledge of vroom’s background.
How come it’s stereotyping when a white person points out flaws in the white community for public consumption, but when a minority does it about their own community, they are just telling the truth? Double-standard possibly?
If you have such a “gi-normous” dislike of this type of thing, then you have just set the expectation that when this topic rolls around again (and it will) but it is about a minority group, then you should be against that as well.
(1) Again how do you know that this is the only experience the author has? Unless you have proof of this, these assumptions are unfounded and your having no respect for him could be misinterpreted as something else.
(2) How is this my side of the argument? It is a white person pointing out flaws in his own community. It is his own side of the argument which he sees having a great deal of truth to it whether you agree with him or not. It’s his version of the truth, much like you have your version.
It’s much like I said earlier, “It’s funny how the view changes when the focus shifts.” It’s not so easy to stay objective and see the truth in what the author wrote when it is directed at your group, is it? This is precisely what many whites expect minorities to do when one of our own starts airing our dirty laundry. White people will agree with them because it represents their viewpoint of the minority group in question. When that minority group in question balks at the assertions, white people will argue that it is the “truth”, tell us that because it is the “truth” that we need to get over it and here is how we see you can fix these problems. Not thinking for one moment that they have no clue about what is truly going on.
Do I believe all white people are like he described? No, of course not. Just like I don’t believe that all black people distrust the government. But enough of them do to make it more a majority mindset.
Before you say it, no, I am not the spokesperson for all black people. Let’s kill that before it gets started. However, I do believe that I have more experience around all types of black people than any white person could ever claim, regardless how they grew up. Black people will not say certain things around white people, no matter how close you are to them. You are not part of the community, so there are always some things that you will never be a part of. That’s just the way it is. Minorities deal with that reality all the time from the majority.
I don’t have time this afternoon to address your questions/observations. I may not have time tonight, or tomorrow - but please don’t let this thread fall off the map. I will respond - I am just horribly short of time right now. It is tax season, and I am an accountant.
I don’t have time this afternoon to address your questions/observations. I may not have time tonight, or tomorrow - but please don’t let this thread fall off the map. I will respond - I am just horribly short of time right now. It is tax season, and I am an accountant. [/quote]
Not a problem. I’ll try to keep it going. I really am enjoying the topic. Go keep the IRS off your clients asses! LOL!
Because Mr. West and NO looting are one in the same?[/quote]
Nope. I’ve already responded to this assertion in previous posts.
[quote]
What the hell are you talking about here? You obviously can’t even comprehend what is being written so further discussion is pointless. What tangent have you flown off on?[/quote]
That would be the tangent where I describe my thoughts, you suggest some corrections, the process repeats until both sides ideally reach some sort of mutual solution. But clearly, it’s a tangent.
[quote]
His comments were not racist simply because he was talking to the people who are perceived to be left out of the rebuilding of NO.[/quote]
That’s not why I said his comments were racist. Read the post.
I wonder who really needs to look up the definition of racism.
It is a stupid example and I know it. This is non sequitur. Girls aren’t allowed in the men’s room and sexual discrimination is pre-established for other reasons long before the teacher says anything. I would assume both blacks and whites are equally welcome in NO. Why is his comment directed only at “African Americans”?
[quote]
If you know it happens, then what the fuck is this post about?[/quote]
I’ve already answered this question in virtually every post. It was in almost every paragraph I typed of the last post.
[quote]
Are you high right now? No one said the reaction to Columbine was racist. That was written NOWHERE.[/quote]
Not even in my post. Zero racism would be the absolute minimum.
What about your “denial filter”? Does it ever get turned off. Hell, even with it on, have you read my posts. You keep putting words in my mouth, asking questions that I’ve already answered, and ignoring questions that are pretty direct and straightforward.
[quote]
Aloof? We weren’t even talking about that shooting. I have to bring up every single shooting in America just to make sure all bases are covered? Let’s not be stupid.[/quote]
Not every shooting, you chose to look at a shooting, I chose to look at a shooting, why should one be discussed and another be excluded?
I didn’t say I made that comment, I merely asked a question and you (as usual) didn’t answer and saying nothing is saying something:
“You aren’t neutral simply because you keep your mouth shut while it happens.”
Did I say that I thought otherwise? Nope.
In order to represent all races equally and not favor one race over another, yes.
So then black racial profiling isn’t necessarily the problem racial profiling in general is, and any race profiling another race is equally offensive?
That would be the tangent where I describe my thoughts, you suggest some corrections, the process repeats until both sides ideally reach some sort of mutual solution. But clearly, it’s a tangent.[/quote]
And clearly your level of experience when it comes to people in general seems limited. Your arguments or points made in this post have me wondering where you grew up or if you’ve grown up.
[quote]
I wonder who really needs to look up the definition of racism.[/quote]
You?
[quote]
It is a stupid example and I know it. This is non sequitur. Girls aren’t allowed in the men’s room and sexual discrimination is pre-established for other reasons long before the teacher says anything. I would assume both blacks and whites are equally welcome in NO. Why is his comment directed only at “African Americans”?[/quote]
Answer this question for me, why do I have to type out the exact same info over and over and over before you actually get it? Let’s try for the last time. I then want you to go back and count the times I have explained this to you in this thread alone and then ask which parent dropped you and why. Every race was not implicated as being “left out” of the NO rebuilding process. This perception was held by many blacks. Is it the correct perception? That is debateable. That doesn’t erase the fact that this perception existed. Speaking to that group is not racist if the goal is to assure them that they are not being left out of this process. Nagen could not put together a good speech, but his attempt is apparent to anyone not trying extremely hard to simply find fault in everything he said.
He deserves no credit for the ill thought out speech he put together. However, racist is not applied simply because one racial group is spoken to directly. To imply otherwise is retarded and this group of homeless blacks is in no way “in power” in this situation as they are spread out across several states. This was no attempt at elitism. You know it. Why act as if you don’t? You can’t compare the Katrina evacuation to any other random event in history in order to find an equal situation with enough media attention to compare this to.
I have taken out, quoted and responded to every major point you have written. No one has put words in your mouth. This is impossible when you are quoted directly.
[quote]
Not every shooting, you chose to look at a shooting, I chose to look at a shooting, why should one be discussed and another be excluded?[/quote]
Uh, because every shooting does not show that the “social response” was NOT to toss a stigma towards the entire white race. You missed this point? Again, why does this have to be spelled out so many times in repetition? It has been said to you before, over and over and over. How many more times before you get it?
[quote]
In order to represent all races equally and not favor one race over another, yes.[/quote]
What? This entire thread is about white priviledge compared to minorities. Why would I talk about every single race in America? It isn’t needed to show you this and every single race in America is not the issue in any way.
Yes. I said this already. You truly didn’t understand it?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Why do black people that espouse traditional white ideas, i.e. Clarence Thomas, or Walter Williams, labeled as Uncle Toms?
But if a white guy that has never seen a black person in real life starts supporting black idealism, he is welcomed with open arms. It’s a two way street.
[/quote]
Is being a conservative “white” and liberal black? I think you are confusing political bias with race. Whites don’t have to be conservative and Blacks don’t have to be liberal. The reason Black liberals don’t like those guys is because they are conservative, not because they are black. Al may argue that it is also because they have received help from the system and are now is positions of power and are trying to dismantle the very systems that helped them. I don’t agree that you can prove they were actually helped by the system. I believe they would have achieved their goals regardless (like many did even before civil rights).
What is “black idealism”? Is that the idea that MLK pushed as being judged by your deeds and not the color of your skin? If that is “idealism”, I must be an idealist because that is the way it should be.
And clearly your level of experience when it comes to people in general seems limited. Your arguments or points made in this post have me wondering where you grew up or if you’ve grown up.[/quote]
What should it matter where I grew up? Would Compton be any better or worse than Connecticut or Czechoslovakia? Racism is everywhere in all kinds of manifestions and to all kinds of extremes. Which ones should I worry about most? What could/should I do about any of them?
[quote]
Answer this question for me, why do I have to type out the exact same info over and over and over before you actually get it?[/quote]
I admittedly have blinders on and/or am in denial.
That or it’s because I keep asking the exact same questions and you keep dodging them in the exact same way.
Entirely your choice.
Sounds like we’re opposite sides of the same coin here. My understanding is (it could be wrong) you’re saying his comments weren’t racist because of good or justified intent and I’m saying it was racist, but it was justified and/or his intent was good, no harm done.
I agreed with this, especially in regard to what Hillary Clinton said in her speech.
Except, “What is to be done?”
What about when I’m not quoted directly?
After all, “You aren’t neutral simply because you keep your mouth shut while it happens.”
No, you raised a point and I made a counterpoint that whites aren’t the only ones who enjoy such privileges. Not only that, but you selectively cite white racial impunity with respect to Columbine but gloss over native American impunity (which you, presumably, enjoyed) to Red Lake.
It is needed to show that you enjoy the same privileges that you are criticizing. You and I have benefitted tremendously as the result of tragedies befallen native Americans and yet defend someone who criticizes me for benefiting from the tragedies befallen black slaves.
How do I know what to atone for and how? How do I know when I should really aton for something and when I’m just pay lip service to (or even ignore) a debatably incorrect perception?
You’re right, I got a little confused when you said:
“The issue is largely black and white because those are the polar opposites in our society based on past relations and current perceptions. To ignore this or imply it is not the case is pure ignorance.”
and then agreed when I said;
“So then black racial profiling isn’t necessarily the problem racial profiling in general is, and any race profiling another race is equally offensive?”