Thinking About Your Race?

[Professor_X]

[quote]tedro wrote:

Menstruation. Abortion. Menstruation. Abortion. What are we talking about here? I don’t think there is anything wrong with a women menstruating every now and then. Abortion is a different story.

Keep in mind that Roe v Wade was decided entirely by men. As they are obviously unqualified to decide such a case, I motion that the case should be redecided and we should appoint an all-woman court for the case. Nevermind the innocent life, I don’t have anything in common with it.[/quote]

Did you actually mean this as ridiculously as it came across or am I just reading it wrong? I am sure every woman alive is grateful that you don’t mind if they have a period every now and then.

[quote]
Very good, then you should also know how poor whites are sometimes treated.[/quote]

I do. That answer would be, “the average white male has experienced no where near what any other minority group (including white women) in this country has experienced with regards to blatant discrimination”

[tedro]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
No corporation with any sense would even approach business in this day and age with a glaring issue with race. Racism in America today, considering how far we’ve come, is hidden and no where near as easy to spot as it was decades ago. It may be hidden in food costs or the quality of services in areas with disproportionately higher numbers of certain racial groups. Either way, it is amazing that this is NEWS to anyone. I grew up experiencing the problems with grocery stores in black neighborhoods. That is why this discussion highlights the problem…because it was never an issue with you before. Hell, did you even know about this before reading it here? How has poorer quality and higher prices in black neighborhoods affected you? Not at all?
[/quote]
This isn’t news at all, it should be exactly what one with a basic understanding of economics would expect.

Do you think that this could have far reaching health issues?

Issues, yes, but none of them are reason to get upset over. The wealthy will always be able to afford faster, better health care. The only way around this is socialized healthcare that will bring down quality for all. After reading some of your posts on this subject, I think we are generally in agreement here.

Do you think that increased numbers of minorities with health issues are a problem?

Indeed it is, and to fix the problem you need to examine its root. It is not race.

Do you not see the connection?

Does this mean that someone is saying that “Kroger’s” is a racist entity? No. It means that we are acknowledging the unbalanced racist effect of actions that have gone on for decades and still continue.

Can you even understand the difference?

You have still failed to show a cause for higher prices based on race. Correlation does not equal causation.

On such a decreased level that it is not a national or even state-wide concern and never has been.

College entrance? Tuition/scholarship availability? Employment? Barack Obama making fun of whites dancing abilities? Not to mention the racially charged crimes that rarely make the news.
[i]
“Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit violent crime against a white person than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

“Black-on-white rape is 115 times more common than the reverse.”
[/i]
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57250

To simply say that prices are higher in areas with a large minority population because of racism is absurd and goes against all of the principles of a free market.

That isn’t all that is being said. That is simply all you can see.

Again, that was the premise that started this thread.

[CC1]

[quote]tedro wrote:
Of course they are an unnecessary death, but you must ask yourself why you see this happening amongst black people more than white. My point was the 83,000 figure is meaningless and we cannot draw any logical conclusion from it without some more information. It definitely should not be used to claim a health care inequality.[/quote]

I would like to clarify something. Dr. Troutman’s presentation was not about health-care inequality. The main focus of his presentation was health and how we as a society can improve it.

That stat he gave us was simply something he threw out during the course of his presentation, not something he was using to point to health-care inequality. I never stated that study was for purposes of establishing health-care inequality nor that Dr. Troutman was suggesting that.

That being said, it is still an eye-opening statistic.

Any number of reasons could be attributed to this…Again, you cannot simply blame all of the disparities on race.

I don’t remember anyone ever blaming all of the disparities on race. But are you outright denying that race is not a factor?

You quit providing welfare and let good ol’ capitalism do its trick.

Welfare does have its problems. Capitalism is not the only answer to the glaring problem of disparities in health (not health-care) among different groups in our society, however. I’m not saying I have the answer, but I do know capitalism alone is not it.

Let me get this straight, the doctors were “tricked” into believing that patients were having heart attacks, and you are trying to use this study to blame health-care inequality on race.

Using that logic, any study that uses a placebo is a “trick” and should not be taken seriously.

[quote]I would have to see some more details of the study to accurately comment, but maybe white men are better actors.
[/quote]

I don’t have that particular study, but I did find this article, which touches on many of the same points and findings:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/20/tests_of_er_trainees_find_signs_of_race_bias_in_care/

[Professor_X]

[quote]tedro wrote:

This isn’t news at all, it should be exactly what one with a basic understanding of economics would expect.[/quote]

Right. Then tell me, since you have such amazing insight, what is the specific reason the major shopping center on Martin Luther King and Reed rd has higher prices and poorer quality. I don’t want speculation. I want you to give specifics…you know, to show that race is definitely a non-issue and shouldn’t even be considered.

[quote]
Do you think that this could have far reaching health issues?

Issues, yes, but none of them are reason to get upset over. The wealthy will always be able to afford faster, better health care. The only way around this is socialized healthcare that will bring down quality for all. After reading some of your posts on this subject, I think we are generally in agreement here.[/quote]

Nothing to be upset over? Would you say the same if you happened to live in that area with no transportation aside from public buses?

[quote]
Do you think that increased numbers of minorities with health issues are a problem?

Indeed it is, and to fix the problem you need to examine its root. It is not race.[/quote]

Its roots are submerged in a history that has nearly everything to do with race. Exactly how far down do the “roots” you are looking at travel?

[quote]
You have still failed to show a cause for higher prices based on race. Correlation does not equal causation.[/quote]

How would I possibly prove this to you aside from showing you that one particular race is who is largely effected the most? If this was as blatant as a store claiming to be racist, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Also, unless you are about to claim that racism isn’t racism unless it calls itself racism, pointing out economics doesn’t change who is largely affected.

[quote]
College entrance? Tuition/scholarship availability? Employment? Barack Obama making fun of whites dancing abilities? Not to mention the racially charged crimes that rarely make the news.
[i]
“Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit violent crime against a white person than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.”

“Black-on-white rape is 115 times more common than the reverse.”
[/i]
om/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57250[/quote]

Yes, you are clearly at more of a disadvantage than anyone else. Wait, you aren’t, are you? Please deny that white men are least likely than any other race to experience any sort of bias that can affect their social standing.

I don’t think anyone has written that white people never experience racial bias. However, I am definitely stating that the effects are far less reaching and the incidence is so low in comparison that most should be ashamed for acting like it is a nation wide issue.

I don’t know anything about Obama’s comments about how white people dance and don’t care. My guess is, this didn’t affect you at all and hasn’t affected your social standing or economic class one bit. Was it a joke? if so, then why did you present it as if it wasn’t?

[CC1]

[quote]tedro wrote:
This thread began with the premise that race is the only factor.[/quote]

Actually, no it did not. Apparently you just didn’t read my initial post very well. So, I’ll post the pertinent part again:

This is something that really got to me and THE REAL REASON FOR THIS THREAD, however. At one point in the presentation, Dr. Troutman asked “How many of you never think about your race?” One hand went up. “How many of you think about your race once a month?” A couple more hands went up. “Once a week?” A few more hands. “Everyday?” A whole bunch of hands go up, including Dr. Troutman’s. Then Dr. Troutman says, “Look at where most of those hands went up,” and points to an area of the room where a majority of the African-American attendants were sitting. “Why is that?” he asked.

Where does it say anything about race being the only factor in price disparities, again?

[tedro]

[quote]CC wrote:
I would like to clarify something. Dr. Troutman’s presentation was not about health-care inequality. The main focus of his presentation was health and how we as a society can improve it.

That stat he gave us was simply something he threw out during the course of his presentation, not something he was using to point to health-care inequality. I never stated that study was for purposes of establishing health-care inequality nor that Dr. Troutman was suggesting that.

That being said, it is still an eye-opening statistic.
[/quote]
http://www.T-Nation.com/tmagnum/readTopic.do?id=1927248

I don’t remember anyone ever blaming all of the disparities on race. But are you outright denying that race is not a factor?

Based on the quotes you provided to start this thread, it sure seems that that is indeed what Dr. Troutman is doing. I may be wrong, but I am basing this solely on what you posted earlier.

If you are asking me if I am outright denying that race is a factor in corporate pricing at grocery stores, then yes I am. Am I denying that race plays a part in health-care? Yes, but not entirely. There are sure to be some racist doctors out there, but definitely not the majority, and not enough to show any statistical significance. As for insurance, race definitely plays a factor, as certain races are more susceptible to certain sickness, and life expectancies are also different. This is not racism, just good business and no more different than giving different rates to the different sexes.

Welfare does have its problems. Capitalism is not the only answer to the glaring problem of disparities in health (not health-care) among different groups in our society, however. I’m not saying I have the answer, but I do know capitalism alone is not it.

Again, take a look at the other thread on health care.

Using that logic, any study that uses a placebo is a “trick” and should not be taken seriously.

Absolutely, and that is why you need all of the details of a study before you start to draw conlcusions. Many times all of these details are not made available.

[Big_Boss]

[quote]tedro wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
tedro wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
I foresee this being a very interesting thread in a couple of days…of course it will become a “discussion” of how a particular race is always “playing” the victim.

Interesting that LankyMofo…and tedro share the same hindsight,considering past posts from the both of you that have come of as almost racist…but basically just uneducated bias.

Such as?

You can’t accuse me of sounding almost racist without citing examples.

From “Happy MLK Day” thread:

CentralGuy wrote:
regardless of his plagarism, he got the job done. Thats what is important in the bug rat race. Happy MLK!

tedro wrote:
Actually he did not get his intended job done. What he wanted was much more socialism than we have now.

And the job he did get done was not as great as it is made out to be. Affirmative action, reverse discrimination, indoctrination… these are not things worthy of praise, let alone a holiday.

Ok…maybe just that post you made came of that way. Maybe not racist,but obviously biased and uneducated more than anything. You seem to be doing a good job of proving that in this thread…Professor X has touched on it already…I’m sure he will see relevance of the above mentioned to the comments you’ve made so far.

Speaking out against affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and indoctrination does not make one racist. I would argue the exact opposite, actually. Those FOR these types of things are racist, by the very definition of racism.

I could have made the exact same arguments against Hillary Clinton, but I suppose that would make me a sexist, then again, she doesn’t have her own holiday. [/quote]

Like I said..maybe not racist…but blind,uneducated bias. You didn’t “speak out” against those issues. You only showed blind bias by saying that MLK’s accomplishments only resulted in affirmative action,reverse discrimination,and indoctrination…and the idiocy to make it as if those things are celebrated in his name. As if civil rights and equality are overrated…You’re blind.

[tedro]

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
tedro wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
tedro wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
I foresee this being a very interesting thread in a couple of days…of course it will become a “discussion” of how a particular race is always “playing” the victim.

Interesting that LankyMofo…and tedro share the same hindsight,considering past posts from the both of you that have come of as almost racist…but basically just uneducated bias.

Such as?

You can’t accuse me of sounding almost racist without citing examples.

From “Happy MLK Day” thread:

CentralGuy wrote:
regardless of his plagarism, he got the job done. Thats what is important in the bug rat race. Happy MLK!

tedro wrote:
Actually he did not get his intended job done. What he wanted was much more socialism than we have now.

And the job he did get done was not as great as it is made out to be. Affirmative action, reverse discrimination, indoctrination… these are not things worthy of praise, let alone a holiday.

Ok…maybe just that post you made came of that way. Maybe not racist,but obviously biased and uneducated more than anything. You seem to be doing a good job of proving that in this thread…Professor X has touched on it already…I’m sure he will see relevance of the above mentioned to the comments you’ve made so far.

Speaking out against affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and indoctrination does not make one racist. I would argue the exact opposite, actually. Those FOR these types of things are racist, by the very definition of racism.

I could have made the exact same arguments against Hillary Clinton, but I suppose that would make me a sexist, then again, she doesn’t have her own holiday.

Like I said..maybe not racist…but blind,uneducated bias. You didn’t “speak out” against those issues. You only showed blind bias by saying that MLK’s accomplishments only resulted in affirmative action,reverse discrimination,and indoctrination…and the idiocy to make it as if those things are celebrated in his name. As if civil rights and equality are overrated…You’re blind.[/quote]

Now you’re just making a strawman.

[tedro]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Right. Then tell me, since you have such amazing insight, what is the specific reason the major shopping center on Martin Luther King and Reed rd has higher prices and poorer quality. I don’t want speculation. I want you to give specifics…you know, to show that race is definitely a non-issue and shouldn’t even be considered.
[/quote]
You fly me down to Texas and fund my research and I’ll get right on that for you.

Nothing to be upset over? Would you say the same if you happened to live in that area with no transportation aside from public buses?

Are we talking about health care or public transportation? Do you even have the ability to stay with one arguement? Honest question.

Nevertheless, I would probably make a similar arguement. A bicycle isn’t too hard to come by.

Its roots are submerged in a history that has nearly everything to do with race. Exactly how far down do the “roots” you are looking at travel?

This is exactly the sort of victimhood I speak of. Everything can ultimately be blamed on race, can’t it? Surely the market hasn’t redefined itself in such a time span.

How would I possibly prove this to you aside from showing you that one particular race is who is largely effected the most? If this was as blatant as a store claiming to be racist, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Also, unless you are about to claim that racism isn’t racism unless it calls itself racism, pointing out economics doesn’t change who is largely affected.

And the fact that it tends to be minorites that are affected the most does not mean it is due to racism either. We could exclude race and just look at income and we would see the trends.

Yes, you are clearly at more of a disadvantage than anyone else. Wait, you aren’t, are you? Please deny that white men are least likely than any other race to experience any sort of bias that can affect their social standing.

Clearly I am. Do you know how many more doors would have been opened for me throughout high school and college if I was a black man? The difference here is that I don’t use any of this to portray myself as a victim of any sort of oppression.

I don’t think anyone has written that white people never experience racial bias. However, I am definitely stating that the effects are far less reaching and the incidence is so low in comparison that most should be ashamed for acting like it is a nation wide issue.

I’ll refer to my previous post for this statement.

[quote]
I don’t know anything about Obama’s comments about how white people dance and don’t care. My guess is, this didn’t affect you at all and hasn’t affected your social standing or economic class one bit. Was it a joke? if so, then why did you present it as if it wasn’t?[/quote]

Nope, it didn’t affect my standing at all. Would it affect your standing if a white national figure made a joke in passing about blacks’ grammar?

You obvioulsy missed the point behind that comment. Blacks are afforded greater liberties in the media than whites. If a white man were to comment on any ability of blacks in a negative way, he would immediately be labeled racist. Explain to me how this is not racism.

[Sloth]

Well, that’s interesting. Not really sure that anything can be, or even should be, done at the governmental level. One thing though. I’m thinking if the produce is overpriced, what a wonderful oppurtunity for someone to come along and offer a better price for the same product.

[tedro]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, that’s interesting. Not really sure that anything can be, or even should be, done at the governmental level. One thing though. I’m thinking if the produce is overpriced, what a wonderful oppurtunity for someone to come along and offer a better price for the same product.
[/quote]

Amazing concept, huh?

[SkyzykS]

[quote]Professor X wrote:
SkyzykS wrote:
The allocation of foods space, arrangement, and selection in a grocery store is determined by consumption.
Having built a couple of refrigetation systems in both Costcos and Save-A-Lots, I can tell you that the demgraphic targets of those stores are on opposite ends of the spectrum, as are their allocations of space, arrangement, and selection.

The esteemed speaker wasn’t saying anything new there. It seems he was actualy creating a fallacious link between race and availability of fresh foods. The ADA has investigated this pretty thoroughly and determined that is has more to to with social class than race. People of a lower social class aren’t spending their money on relatively expensive but not as filling foods, regardless of nutritional value. This has also contributed to the phenomenon of obese malnoursihment.

You all are speaking just like people who don’t actually live in these areas and never have. The food in most of these establishments isn’t just less fresh. Very often, it even COSTS MUCH MORE. I know for a fact that I wouldn’t pick up fresh beef off of Martin Luther King street in South Houston. I know this because it will not only be less fresh than at the Randall’s by the Galleria (even cheaper with a membership card), but it will often be more expensive. That goes for many other items like milk or even Pampers.

While you may argue that it has to do with social class, you would have to be pretty blind to act as if there aren’t drastically larger numbers of minorities being effected by it.

It makes little sense for someone who experiences none of this to speak about what people in those situations should do or how they should act.[/quote]

Is this based on the supposition that I was born or grew up well off? Cause that couldn’t be further from the truth.

I’ll tell you a major factor in pricing in those areas- Loss Recovery.

They need to make back the money lost from a majority of prduct being passed through checkout by the cashiers unwithout being paid for. The majority of security cameras are also stationed at the checkout and on the register.
Then theres the armed security that needs to be paid for.

You can disagree with that all you want, but until you go down to those stores that you mentoined and talk to the managers about loss recovery, you got nothing to say.

[Big_Boss]

Strawman??Lol…actually tedro,you’re doing a better job of that than me…and digging the hole to bury it in,too. You missed the whole agenda of this thread to begin with…as predicted. You’re making more of the issue with race beyond what was intended in the topic of this thread

Also…how can you(and others) suggest that life is “easier” for black people??..and then make the argument that race has less of a factor in things. Enlighten me…because you’re not making sense. You’re debating against race being a factor…with race.

[tedro]

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Strawman??Lol…actually tedro,you’re doing a better job of that than me…and digging the hole to bury it in,too. You missed the whole agenda of this thread to begin with…as predicted. You’re making more of the issue with race beyond what was intended in the topic of this thread
[/quote]
The OP goes from giving statistics on unnecessary deaths for blacks and price disparaties between white neighborhoods and minority neighborhoods. Then, he comments on a short exercise in which guests were asked how often they think about race. Based on this information, I think my assumptions on the intent of the topic were pretty reasonable.

[quote]
Also…how can you(and others) suggest that life is “easier” for black people??..and then make the argument that race has less of a factor in things. Enlighten me…because you’re not making sense. You’re debating against race being a factor…with race.[/quote]

I haven’t at all debated race with race, and you would realize this if you read my arguements without your preconceived notion that I am “uneducated”, “bias”, and “almost racist”.

It’s rather simple. I have claimed that race is not an issue in the topics being discussed. Social class and wealth are the issue, and none of the disparities are due to discrimination.

In addition to this claim, I have pointed out that racism goes both ways, and there are many times when whites are indeed at a disadvantage to blacks.

[The_Mage]

There is only one reason why the produce sucks. People are buying it.

Got a problem with that produce? Then do something about it.

The conservatives fucked up in the past, and lost much of the black support, (which was unwavering after the Civil War,) and the liberals were the first to see that there would be power in garnering their vote.

Problem is the liberal idea is it is the job of the government, and people get placated. They sit around and whine instead of doing something about it, which could be as simple as not buying crap from a crappy grocery store.

(But, but but.) But nothing. If Rosa Parks can refuse to get up, if people can boycott riding buses after that, and a group of young black men can demand service in a Woolworth’s, day after day, at risk of physical harm, and legal trouble, why the hell can’t people spend a little extra time going to a decent grocery store?

[Nominal_Prospect]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’ve said for a while now that the benefit of being rich isn’t that you have money; its that you don’t think about money.

Likewise the benefit of whiteness isn’t being white, its that you don’t have to think about race.
[/quote]

I agree on the money comment but it’s high time for white people to start thinking about their own race.

The grocery store price question is economic in nature and has nothing to do with race.

The market determines prices - not governments, groups, or races.

Every economic good in existence is priced to sell. If it sells, the price is “right”, by definition. If it doesn’t sell, it’s not priced right.

So long as anyone continues buying groceries from ghetto area supermarkets, those stores are pricing their inventory correctly.

[SkyzykS]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
There is only one reason why the produce sucks. People are buying it.

Got a problem with that produce? Then do something about it.

The conservatives fucked up in the past, and lost much of the black support, (which was unwavering after the Civil War,) and the liberals were the first to see that there would be power in garnering their vote.

Problem is the liberal idea is it is the job of the government, and people get placated. They sit around and whine instead of doing something about it, which could be as simple as not buying crap from a crappy grocery store.

(But, but but.) But nothing. If Rosa Parks can refuse to get up, if people can boycott riding buses after that, and a group of young black men can demand service in a Woolworth’s, day after day, at risk of physical harm, and legal trouble, why the hell can’t people spend a little extra time going to a decent grocery store?[/quote]

It isn’t quite that simple either though. Two of the grogery store projects I worked on were subsidized by the state due to the need for the availability of shopping according to the state subsidized living arrangements(section 8). There were no other places to go for litteraly miles.

Any other grocery stores with half a brain got tired of being robbed from the inside out, and at gunpoint, and hightailed it a few years prior. The ones we built were spurred on by community action groups that demanded that there be grocery stores within the community.

In the course of a month and a half, there were 3 murders after hours on the jobsite, one home invasion/kidnapping, half a dozen shootings, and the windows had to be replaced twice because of bullet holes. At the time that we completed our work, there were more than 20 bullet holes in the cinderblock.

Would you want to build a business in that place?

And, The produce wouldn’t suck if people bought it. It would have a faster turn around time and be replenished more quickly.

But, a store that is there already there as a community service and is already losing up to a couple thousand dollars a day to theft isn’t going to find yet another way to hemmorage money in the form of buying produce just to throw away and replenish, throw away and replenish, etc…

The people in that community are destroying themselves from the inside out, then complaining about it.

[Zap_Branigan]

Kill Whitey.

[CC1]

Well, as most threads do around here, this thread has completely taken a turn for the worst into a steaming pile of shit. I should never have included those pieces of information before asking the real question I wanted to get to. Contrary to tedro’s belief, however, I did not include them in this thread with any sort of hidden agenda. I just mentioned them because I thought they were interesting.

I had hoped that people would discuss the “thinking about your race” issue, but instead everyone continues to focus on the damn grocery store discussion.

[Professor_X]

[quote]CC wrote:
Well, as most threads do around here, this thread has completely taken a turn for the worst into a steaming pile of shit. I should never have included those pieces of information before asking the real question I wanted to get to. Contrary to tedro’s belief, however, I did not include them in this thread with any sort of hidden agenda. I just mentioned them because I thought they were interesting.

I had hoped that people would discuss the “thinking about your race” issue, but instead everyone continues to focus on the damn grocery store discussion.[/quote]

That is because if they can work hard at explaining away the possibility that race is still a legitimate factor to many people in this country IF YOU AREN’T WHITE, then they can continue to act as if everyone who says it is somehow is delusional and crying out as a victim who can’t help themselves.

That would also be why even attempting to get that point across is pointless.

That is how every debate has gone and will go. It must feel great to walk through life where your race is a non-issue until someone else brings it up in regards to themselves.