Racism also exists in groups, in group dynamics. In the way society expects and encourages people to act-surely you must understand that. Changing society starts with changing your own individual behavior, but surely you'll agree it doesn't end there. Imagine if everyone acted as an individual and did nothing else. We shouldn't even be having this conversation then, should we? I'm sure you'll say you're doing your part, so why bother to try and change my mind or even discuss it? There's nothing more to be done, right?
And a careful review of my statements will show you that I made no recommendations about what to do about the problem, simply spoke my opinion about some viewpoints. You reject people reading your mind, so please refrain from reading mine?
I also note that you didn't say whether you agreed or disagreed with my statements, you more or less told me to shut my trap unless I had a suggestion you thought practical.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky, I appreciate what you're saying and I appreciate the polite tone in which you said it.
I'm at the point now where I'm so tired I'm having a hard time focusing. So, I'm going to bow out of the thread.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion on what the law should do concerning matters of racism and bigotry hasn't changed at all, but my awareness of some of the more subtle problems of racism has grown, perhaps. My opinion remains that any measure to "level the playing field" is doomed to failure because, frankly, no one white black yellow or green knows just what a truly level playing field is, exactly, nor do they know who's at what level. It's also doomed to engender serious resentment and is very possibly going to damage race-relations disproportionate to the gains made for minorities.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One practical suggestion is to join groups that have people from diverse life experiences.
Play Ultimate Frisbee -- but remember that the experience is shaped by the athleticism of the people who participate.
Do Habitat for Humanity -- but remember that if it's a faith-based group, then your experience will be flavored by that faith.
Be a Big Brother / Big Sister -- but remember that this experience, too, is shaped by the structure of the relationship.
None of these are bad experiences. Heck, I think they are great expereiences. No one experience -- no one life -- is enough to give you a balanced perspective. But I believe that whatever amount of determinism does shape our lives through our culture can be mitigated in its restictive effect by broadening the numbers and types of groups we affiliate with.
Be a cosmopolitan, a citizen of the world. Get down with the bigger perspective, one friend at a time. Being interested is what makes you interesting as a person, anyway.
[By the way, I don't offer this as a quick fix for any prolems, be they systemic or individual. I do, however, think it's a grand place to start.]
quote: First of all, of course there are more poor white people in the country than there are poor black people, Robespierre.
Of course!
quote: Did you ever see the film Gentlemen's Agreement?
no
quote:He realized that no white Christian man should have a pretense of true understanding, since they couldn't understand. You should have get rid of that same pretense, Robespierre. The pretense that things aren't radically different.
For the umpteen-millionth time, I do not deny there is a PROBLEM. When you tell me that I don't understand what it's like to be black, you are 100% correct, i do not dispute that.
You are speaking around the point. You want to keep telling me about what my point of view is. I already know what I think, you do not. Tell me about your ideas for a solution.
The backlash against your sort of statements is exactly what a lot of honest people feel. The constant bombardment with the message "white people are racist, you all need to realize this" causes people to close their minds and not listen. Unless you have something to say about the nature of the problem, lay off it.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Racism also exists in groups, in group dynamics. In the way society expects and encourages people to act-surely you must understand that. Changing society starts with changing your own individual behavior, but surely you'll agree it doesn't end there.
Is society not a group of individuals? How ELSE would you propose changing society? There is nothing to change save for individuals.
quote: And a careful review of my statements will show you that I made no recommendations about what to do about the problem, simply spoke my opinion about some viewpoints. You reject people reading your mind, so please refrain from reading mine?
I know you haven't made any recommendations. All you have done is told me that I don't know what's REALLY going on.
quote: I also note that you didn't say whether you agreed or disagreed with my statements, you more or less told me to shut my trap unless I had a suggestion you thought practical.
I agree that there are white people who are racist. I have said this many thousands of times now. What do want from me?
quote: My opinion on what the law should do concerning matters of racism and bigotry hasn't changed at all
I am asking without malice or sarcasm, what IS your opinion on what the law should do?
quote: frankly, no one white black yellow or green knows just what a truly level playing field is,
This is the easiest of all the problems around this issue. A level playing field is one where the rules apply to each player in the same way. Period. No one gets any special breaks, no one gets set back because they are a certain religion. Same rules for everyone.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: but while it's no one person's fault, it's everyone's problem.
quote: We just have to work it out, figure out the disadvantages and work through them slowly. The individual's solution is to pay attention, don't deny the problem, and address it when it comes up in your life.
I am in total agreement with these points.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second.... what is all this about white people not being able to see how widespread and severe racism is today? I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not going to operate under the assumption that I'm blind and only minorities can see racism. It doesn't matter if everyone else in the world claims the Emperor has new clothes on - if it's plain to me that he's got no clothes on, then I'm believing that.
The truth is, I've observed that many minorities and some whites have become conditioned to see racism where it isn't, and to be hypersensitive to it when it exists in small doses. This is an important chunk of the problem. I've witnessed a good number of situation where someone I knew claimed racism was going on, and on all but a couple cases, I'm pretty confident they were mistaken in that. To take a well-publicized example at my school, the was recently a big fuss over a couple of students who dressed up as the Venus and Serena Williams for halloween, and painted their faces black. The black community was highly offended by this and felt it was a blatant act of racism. After an investigation, though, it turned out the two white kids had no idea there would be an offense taken by that at all - they just thought they had neat costumes.
It's easy enough to claim minorities still have all kinds of disadvantages, and to claim that whites just can't see it because they've never been black before, but those are just claims. The question is, what have you seen that can back it up? Lots of people have seen blacks treated in some way differently because of their skin color, but the same could be said for men with earrings, fat people, people with accents, and (especially) ugly people. This is a big problem yes, but it's not the sort of extreme oppression some people seem to be suggesting here. What is this 'sea of priviledge' you talk about and why can you see it and not me? Can you point me to actual examples?
Edit: And I'm aware that there is a small minority of people who retain their racist views and are willing to act on them in extreme ways. This too is a problem, but also is not widespread oppression either.
quote:For the umpteen-millionth time, I do not deny there is a PROBLEM. When you tell me that I don't understand what it's like to be black, you are 100% correct, i do not dispute that.
But you deny that, compared to blacks, white people "swim in a sea of privilege".
quote:You are speaking around the point. You want to keep telling me about what my point of view is. I already know what I think, you do not. Tell me about your ideas for a solution.
You're really going to have to get over this insistence on not being told what you think when you keep saying that you know what it's like to be black, though you've never experienced it. And you are, with your denials that I just mentioned.
quote:The constant bombardment with the message "white people are racist, you all need to realize this" causes people to close their minds and not listen. Unless you have something to say about the nature of the problem, lay off it.
I did not say white people are racist. Either stop telling people to shut up and stop reading your mind, or stop doing it yourself. It's very, very annoying and I've only been reading this thread for a little while. I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of solutions when you glory in the fact that you don't know what the problem is. The problem is not that white people are racist. Stop treating it like it's a nut to be wrenched.
quote:Is society not a group of individuals? How ELSE would you propose changing society? There is nothing to change save for individuals.
Your solution-you've said this yourself-is to not be a racist in your individual life, and anything else is counter-racist. That's nonsense. I am not suggesting the problem is overt, systematic racism. I am suggesting the problem is more subtle than that, and just telling yourself over and over again, "I'm color-blind, I'm not a racist," isn't going to solve the problem.
quote:All you have done is told me that I don't know what's REALLY going on.
You don't, and you refuse to listen to anyone who says you don't. All you say is, "Shut up and offer me a solution."
The problem is this, as I see it. Minorities in America are disadvantaged not because they are actively oppressed by the system, although they're sometimes oppressed by individuals. The problem is that our society, for all its pretense of color-blindness, is not in fact color blind. You cannot deny this. If one is a white person, then it's quite likely that most if not all of your friends are white. This is because society-not individuals-encourage us through media, schools, communities and movies to be more inclined to associate with other white people than minorities. This is not because we're taught to dislike minorities, but because we see and are surrounded by white people.
White people are more likely to get a college education, because they're more likely to have parents who are better off financially, and therefore more likely to emphasize education. White people are proportionally more likely to have better contacts with professionals because, proportionally, white people make up more of the professionals. They are therefore more likely to get better jobs because of their better education and references, not just because they worked hard in school and in their jobs, but because they were more likely than minorities to be in a position to take advantage of such opportunities.
That is part of the problem, as I see it, and the solution called for is more than just, "Don't be an overt racist in your individual life," it calls for a recognition of these obvious truths, which you are loathe to do.
The other part of the problem is that even if the playing field is level in the eyes of the law, there are still numerous advantages for a white person that don't exist for a minority, simply by circumstance of ethnicity.
PS The more poor white people point you made was irrelevant, because there are hundreds of millions more white people in the nation than black people, naturally there will be more poor white people than black people.
quote: When you tell me that I don't understand what it's like to be black, you are 100% correct, i do not dispute that.
Then Rakeesh said this:
quote: you keep saying that you know what it's like to be black, though you've never experienced it.
What thread are you reading?
quote:It's very, very annoying and I've only been reading this thread for a little while. I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of solutions when you glory in the fact that you don't know what the problem is. The problem is not that white people are racist. Stop treating it like it's a nut to be wrenched.
You're right, the issue is a wrench to bash people over the head who don't agree with you.
I glory in the fact that i don't know what the problem is? I have spent the last 10 posts trying to explain what the problem is to you, but you seem to be selectively reading 1 or 2 lines from my posts and ignoring the rest.
quote: I am not suggesting the problem is overt, systematic racism. I am suggesting the problem is more subtle than that, and just telling yourself over and over again, "I'm color-blind, I'm not a racist," isn't going to solve the problem.
Find where I use the phrase "color blind" to describe myself. No one in america can possibly be color blind when its made into such an enormous issue.
Rakeesh makes this point yet again:
quote: is not in fact color blind. You cannot deny this.
What Robespierre has said about this already:
quote: I agree that there are white people who are racist.
White priviledge implies that whites get special advantages over people who are not white. While I am sure that this does happen, it is not as all pervasive as you would have us believe.
For the umpteen-millionth time, I do not deny there is a PROBLEM.
There seems to be the habitual problem in these race discussions of people arguing that racism DOES exist. Of course it exists. I don't think anyone here would tell you it does not. When those who want to eliminate racism are attacked and labeled as denying the problem, the entire discussion moves backward.
quote:And yet, having lived through something that you have not, I'm telling you that you are mistaken about the extent to which majority members are oppressed.
Well, no. Because I look pretty American, and because my English is pretty much unaccented, I can pass for a majority-American when I want to. It's only when I'm with my Spanish-speaking friends and family in a restaurant or store, or when somebody sees my name on my ID or my AAA card, or at my workplace, that I stop being treated like a white American and start being treated, sometimes, like an idiot or a thief. The rest of the time, I get to be in the elevator too full for a black person to enter, and hear somebody say, after the door closes, "No coloreds allowed!" and at least half the people on the elevator laughing. I get to be told by Americans (over and over again) that they don't envy my experience of living in South Florida, because there are way too many spics there. And I am describing actual experiences of mine.
So I feel like I can see this issue from both sides.
I don't have any problem granting that white anglo-saxon Americans experience prejudice from time to time. But your point seems to be that dominant-culture Americans experience prejudice too (granted), that it's not big a deal (for you), and that, therefore, claims by minority members to be oppressed are blown out of proportion. The only way that your experience of racism can lead to the conclusion that it's not that big a deal is if you equate your own experience of racism to that of minority members. And I don't grant that. I have a hard time believing that you can claim this with a straight face.
quote:By the way, megachirops, what do you mean by majority and minority members? Does a white guy in a predominantly hispanic neighborhood have the same kind of minority status, or experience, as a hispanic guy in a predominantly white neighborhood?
I would say that such a person experiences a similar kind of minority status. It's not quite the same, because of the backdrop of majority culture that still emraces such a person, but if you're asking whether a white guy in a predoninantly hispanic or black neighborhood could possibly have an intense experience of being discriminated against, I would say sure. I'm not saying that white Americans have a monopoly on prejudice, or that minorities have a monopoly on virtue.
Again, Storm, I'm sorry that you feel I am being rude in how I make my point, and that this thread is tiring to you. I'm not sure how I could express myself on this without seeming offensive to you, because my very view of the situation seems to be offensive to you. But I am sorry that you are finding this unpleasant.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like and agree with pretty much everything Icarus has said. In fact, I was going to say some of it myself.
The problem with this argument is that the participants don't really agree on terms. To some people, racism is any acknowledgement of race at all. To others, it's just when people have a negative or inferior association with a certain race. Still others think it's only when people act on such associations. And others refine it even further to say it's only racism when such actions are perpetrated by a person whose group has the majority of power in the system.
If you define racism as acknowledging race at all, then of course it's impossible to avoid racism. I don't define racism that way.
Being Japanese is an important part of my identity. It is not the only part of my identity. But it is fundamental. If I found out that I were not really Japanese, that would shake me. But is that more wrong than being shaken at, say, finding out you are adopted? You have no more control over who your biological parents are than you have over your race. But I doubt very much that many people would consider it morally wrong to identify yourself with your parents.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in the midst of an IM conversation with a friend about what the goal of an argument is and/or should be. I think it's highly appropriate.
There are many possible outcomes of an argument. This is certainly not exhaustive, but:
I didn't previously have that data, you're right.
I've never thought of it that way, you're right.
I disagree with you, but I have at least learned something about you.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
I'm too tired to continue this argument.
I disagree with you, and I also dislike you.
The first two possible outcomes are certainly favorable, but exceedingly likely. Yet I think most people still approach an argument with one of those goals in mind. Everyone has a certain set of premises that they hold as unassailable. Some of these are fundamental, some are based on a prior train of logic that they hold to be perfect. There is no point in arguing about the fundamental premises, as they are not based on anything else. You can only acknowledge them, point out your own agreement or disagreement, and then move on. The logically derived premises can be argued with by moving further back in the logic train until you arrive at either a flaw in the logic or a fundamental premise. But it's unlikely that you will get much out of it, if your goal is to convince the other person that you are right.
To apply this to the current conversation, I think that Robespierre holds as a self-evident, unassailable truth that the government should not attempt to influence with what people think. (Feel free to correct me if I'm at all mistaken in my characterization, Robespierre.) Therefore, any possible benefits to the government attempting to change people's minds about racism, or to attempt to "level" the playing field, are small in comparison to the great evil of government interference. He also doubts the efficacy of any such interference, further compounding the wrongness of interference with futility. I'm pretty sure he thinks that if things continue without interference, the percentage of minorities below the poverty line relative to the whole population below the poverty line should approach the percentage of minorities relative to the whole population. But, he doesn't think that such a change is particularly important. I think, not sure, that he feels that, even if this were not the case, that it is still a lesser evil to government interference.
I'm pretty sure that all of that is true, although I admit I could be wrong. I'm also relatively sure that he's not going to change his mind about any of it. So any future argument should bear that in mind and only try to change his mind if the arguer actually wants to frustrate him/herself.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not saying that white Americans have a monopoly on prejudice, or that minorities have a monopoly on virtue.
I think it would go a long way if everybody would remember this one.
Also: I'm not saying that all minorities believe they are victims to white Americans, but some think that all white Americans will persecute them every chance they get. To me, that seems like it's just as big of a problem as white Americans thinking that there is no racial issues in American society today.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, Storm, the Golden Rule is not always the best way to go. Treating people as you would like to be treated is only a good idea if you can assume that everyone wants to be treated the way you want to be treated (which in many cases is a valid assumption). But not everyone wants to be treated the same way that you do. Is it wrong for them to disagree with you in this way?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that Robespierre holds as a self-evident, unassailable truth that the government should not attempt to influence with what people think.
This is 100% correct, and your summary that follows is spot on. Very well said. I guess sometimes it takes a 3rd party to calm things down a tad.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
from an 1865 speech by abolitionist Frederick Douglass:
"What I ask for the Negro, is not benevolence, not pity, not sympathy, but simply justice. . . . All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone! . . . Your interference is doing him positive injury."
This is a similar sentiment to what I am saying. The quote is taken from the article I reference earlier in this thread.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A point I would like to make, Robespierre, is that you seem to think that everyone who disagrees with you about the nature of the problem either favors affirmative action, or is not adding anything worthwhile to the debate. The original post asked a question about the nature of racism, and many of us were responding to this issue. So it's pretty bizarre to me that you are responding to me with reasons why you think affirmative action is wrong, and I imagine it is puzzling to Rak to be told by you that he is not adding anything to the conversation at all. We may not be debating the issue that is dearer to your heart, but we are discussing the nature and manifestations of racism in modern society, which is not at all outside of the scope of this discussion. There is a lot of common ground, for instance, where I agree with Storm, but there are specific statements of his I disagree with.
-o-
Thanks, Saxon75, for clarifying where we are all coming at this from . . . I think a lot was starting to get lost in the rhetoric. One question, though:
"The first two possible outcomes are certainly favorable, but exceedingly likely."
Did you mean to say unlikely?
I liked this list, though. Again, it parallels thoughts I have had about the purpose of discussion/debate, but puts it all down quite nicely and concisely. (I would add, as a gray area, since it may coincide with some of your other categories, "I disagree, but I still like and respect you," because that's how I feel on this thread.
quote: ------------------- frankly, no one white black yellow or green knows just what a truly level playing field is, ------------------- This is the easiest of all the problems around this issue. A level playing field is one where the rules apply to each player in the same way. Period. No one gets any special breaks, no one gets set back because they are a certain religion. Same rules for everyone.
Does a level playing field offer equity or equality? It's an important distinction.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I come from an unusual position here. The county I grew up in was around 99% white, and as a result I never noticed any of the worst aspects of racism--there was nobody to act racist toward or discriminate against. I heard racist ideas expressed on occasion, but for the most part I recall reacting to them with puzzlement and distaste--why, exactly, _would_ a black person be less intelligent? (I do recall on one occasion using the n-word in a very despicable and mean way when I was a Cub Scout; so far as I can remember it was one of those times when a kid just decides to be perverse. That was the same year that I decided I supported Mondale over Reagan just because Reagan was popular where I lived. I admit guilt, but this is hardly the same as an ingrained sentiment.)
Once I left Marshall County, it was as if racism evaporated. I could see a residue of it in myself, but since then I have never been able to detect it in anyone from outside, unless it was painfully overt. I find it very difficult to believe more than a handful of people are racist, except perhaps in areas like my home. As for the notion that we need to take action against an inequality for which no living individual is responsible, it strikes me as revolting--surely that would just mean shifting the problem to an equally innocent person (who just happens to be white).
Maybe it's just that everywhere looks bright declared to the gloomy background of my hometown. Add that to my working-class background and my recent struggle just to pay my bills, and I doubt I will ever be able to believe I "swim in a sea of privilege", whether it's true or not.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Again, Storm, I'm sorry that you feel I am being rude in how I make my point, and that this thread is tiring to you. I'm not sure how I could express myself on this without seeming offensive to you, because my very view of the situation seems to be offensive to you. But I am sorry that you are finding this unpleasant.
Er...no. I was just really tired. Still am. I don't think you're rude in making your point at all.
Icachirops, we are just going to have to agree to disagree about the extent of racism leveled at white people. Trust me when I say that my feelings are exactly the same as yours--I don't see how you can claim that many white people don't experience as much, and more, racism that other 'non-dominant' culture. My point about web sites before was just an example. Your rebuttal that 'some website' doesn't prove anything seems to me to be an example of totally, completely missing my general point. The websites were just one example and one I gave because we're on the internet. The omnipresent attitude of black people and many other 'minority' groups in general towards white people--that you must hate minorities, that you must be rich, that you must be square, that you must have gotten where you are by having things given to you, that you can't really understand racism because you're white. These attitudes are omnipresent in society.
I see white people pushing hard to see people for who they are and to support minorities to get where they want to go. Examples abound on this thread. I rarely see the same attitude taken by minorities. I hear and have heard minorites making disparaging comments about white people all the time and no one says anything because it's some kind of wonky balancing of power. White people have it all, so it's o.k. if minorities talk crap about white people.
The assertion that a white person can't know what it's like to be a minority status person member is patently untrue. I asked you before about whether the minority status of a white person in hispanic neighborhood was the same as that of a hispanic guy in a white neighborhood as a way of introducing the subject. You didn't respond, so let me point out that there are plenty of white people, like me, who went to predominantly black high schools or work in predominantly black settings and are relegated to 'minority' status, whatever that means.
See, you keep on bringing up this whole minority status bit as if it means something when I think it's totally meaningless. If you got to a school that is 90% white but 5 students of the ten percent of the minority students there are complete jack asses to you because you are white, or brown or black, or whatever, don't you get the whole lovely experience of being discriminated against? How can you say you don't? Being a national majority doesn't mean you are a local majority or insulate you from racism.
I think you are assuming, if I may presume to say so, that racism is some kind of equal opportunity affliction. Exactly ten percent of people from each 'race' are going to suffer from it, so therefore, since white people are the majority race, minority members must get the short end of the stick.
I don't agree with this at all. As I mentioned before, I think racism towards white people is much more tolerated in minority cultures as an expression of national pride than it is in white culture. I think there are far more racists in 'minority' cultures than there are is in white culture. I don't say this because I'm racist and it was taught to me or any poop like that. That has been my experience.
It's...and I'm trying to think of a word that isn't racist here...odd to me that you don't believe what I'm saying because I'm white. It seems to me a perfect example of racism. You don't believe what I'm saying strictly because of the color of my skin. You are assuming that if I'm white, my life experience *must* be a certain way and that I *couldn't* ever experience life any other way. I'm not saying htis as a kind of low blow at you, Icarus. I like you as a person and I respect your writing, but tell me, how else am I supposed to interpret what you're writing?
My belief that minority cultures are, in general, more racist than white culture isn't my way of tarring them and saying htat they are 'bad' or making some excuse for white people or anything like that. I'm not coming at this by way of rationalization. I didn't sit down at my desk and work this out. It's my experience. I don't know for sure why minorities are that way towards white people, but I posit that part of it may be rolled into the 'to be black, you have to act and think a certain way', or it may just be racist assumptions in general that no one ever bothered to challenge before. It's why I made this thread. If racism is wrong in general, and I think it is, then minorities need to be encouraged to see white people as people as well. I see this happening in white culture and not much in minority culture.
I wrote all this out in the Hatrack chat box. I hope it makes some kind of sense. I get a little disgruntled because so often what I write seems to be saying things to people that I didn't mean it to say. In the final analysis, I believe that two different views of the world can be true to the people who believe them. Everyone experiences the world differently. You believe that the various cultures in America are experiencing each other one way and I believe another. If nothing else, I hope we, you and I, can just throw up our hands and say 'Well, that's the wackiest thing I ever heard. Where did he come up with that?' and agree that our experiences of the world are totally different and keep agree that each are totally valid.
posted
By the way, I'm ignoring one person specifically and everyone else but Icarus in general. I can't respond to everyone and so I'm just focusing in on what he's saying.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody listened to me the first time and I feel like being an a** so I'm going to repeat myself. Take it or leave it :
"If being black defines who you are, then is it possible to *not* be racist?"
Of course not. We are all naturally racist. It is natural to fear that which is different. There is only the matter of whether or not one will act with such feeling.
I'm a friggin w.a.s.p., and I have lived a sheltered life, in a place where racism is not even an issue. I have also, based primarily on my personal apearance, been evicted twice and arrested once, in three different places. Granted, maybe I'm a little non-conformist and don't wash my hair every day- so shoot me- but I have zero criminal record. Anyway, maybe I'm a little biased because these events have occured early in my life, while I still have a very idealistic respect for the law.
Still, the fact remains. Has injustice been done to me? You bet. Have I been really pissed off about it, seriously and angrily contemplated murder over it? You bet. Was it stereotyping? Darn right. Would it have been different if I'd looked different? Right again. Am I too stubborn to change my appearance over it? Sure am, and proud of it. Do I go out and scream 'racism!','classism!' or any other ism bloody murder? Hell, no! If I were to scream something, it would be 'injustice!' and I would call for justice to right it.
The point is this: I know very little about this issue except that there has been horrible racism and it is now greatly dimninished (and hence I'm interested to know what others think on the degree of that decrease) in this country, and I know that while people call for an end to racism instead of an end to injustice, that call itself will likely be unjust.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that Robespierre holds as a self-evident, unassailable truth that the government should not attempt to influence what people think.[I took out a confusing word]
This is where we disagree, then. I don't have a problem with the government trying to influence me. My problem comes with attaching puntive damage if the people don't agree. I expect a little bit of leadership and wisdom from a public official, and to that end, I expect the politician to help me because more wise. I wasn't born wise. It's not as if my parents or friends know everything relevant there is to know.
If public education is the cornerstone of democracy, doesn't the public official, the agent and spokesman for democracy, have an obligation to be a teacher, to help me better understand the world?
If I don't like the message, I won't vote for the official, but I actually do like it when my officials try to influence me. I want to hear their most compelling argument and have it sit in my soul until the end of my days. I want to be a better person for their influence.
I like it when people stand up for humanity. I like it when people stand up for what's important, and I like it when they encourage others to do the same. We are all here today by the grace and courage of an incredible amount of people who up for and ideal, who stood up to help out the lot of another, and who stood up against injustice. No, Robes, I like my politicians, and my people, grounded in hope and courage and faith, and try incredibly hard to convince to convince me. And if I'm not convinced, well, it'll be because I believe the politican is wrong, but I believe in a politicians who endeavor to teach.
posted
What do you want? You whined for a few hundred words, then ended in a statment about you being uninformed and not caring.
Yeah, people should call for an end to injustice, but what does that mean? What's justice. Everyone getting what they deserve? What does everyone deserve? Who deserves what, and how much energy do we want to put into everyone getting the exact same opportunity to do everything?
Saxon
quote:White people have it all, so it's o.k. if minorities talk crap about white people.
Pretty much. I talk plenty bad about black people, but considering the makeup of the forum, I try to make the message relevant.
Would you feel vindicated if I list the problems I perceive with too many black Americans as a result of a legacy of subservience?
posted
Storm Saxon is making excuses and blaming minorities for the problems caused by racism against them, but he'll gladly ignore me because "he just don't like me, mommy."
It's people like SS that make me not want to post here any more.
[ October 24, 2003, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Leto II ]
Posts: 6907 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Well, that's the wackiest thing I ever heard. Where did you come up with that?
quote:I asked you before about whether the minority status of a white person in hispanic neighborhood was the same as that of a hispanic guy in a white neighborhood as a way of introducing the subject. You didn't respond,
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the way, megachirops, what do you mean by majority and minority members? Does a white guy in a predominantly hispanic neighborhood have the same kind of minority status, or experience, as a hispanic guy in a predominantly white neighborhood? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that such a person experiences a similar kind of minority status. It's not quite the same, because of the backdrop of majority culture that still emraces such a person, but if you're asking whether a white guy in a predonimantly hispanic or black neighborhood could possibly have an intense experience of being discriminated against, I would say sure. I'm not saying that white Americans have a monopoly on prejudice, or that minorities have a monopoly on virtue.
quote:It's...and I'm trying to think of a word that isn't racist here...odd to me that you don't believe what I'm saying because I'm white. It seems to me a perfect example of racism. You don't believe what I'm saying strictly because of the color of my skin.
I believe that you can and have experienced racism, but I don't believe that it's quite the same, because you can only experience racism within a subset of American culture, but when you turn on the TV you see mostly people like you. When you read a novel, even a science fiction novel that is ostensibly set elsewhere, the characters in it usually belong to your culture. Heck, when I recently watched a hugely popular cop movie set in the town where I grew up, a town with an enormous Latino population, I find that not only are there no Latino cops, and no Latino extras, and no Latino neighbors, but the one Latino that finally does put in an appearance is, of course, a drug smuggler. And that's kind of my point. That while, yes, you can experience an incident of racism, one look at popular culture imediately tells you that you do belong, that the culture as a whole does not look down on you for only the most superficial of reasons. It's not sexist to say that I can never quite know what menstruation is like.
quote:My belief that minority cultures are, in general, more racist than white culture . . .
This is the point I've been responding to. (I say that not for your benefit, but for people like Robespierre that wonder why those of us who propose no solutions are responding.) I certainly agree that there are prejudiced minority members. But I think that to believe that they are more so indicates a lack of perspective. You mostly know the people who are "pushing hard to see people for who they are and to support minorities to get where they want to go," no doubt because you surround yourself with what you perceive to be quality people. There are lots of people in all cultures that are not like that . . . but certainly not more of them in minority culture.
quote:If racism is wrong in general, and I think it is, then minorities need to be encouraged to see white people as people as well.
Agreed.
quote:I see this happening in white culture and not much in minority culture.
I think the racism of minorities toward whites stands out to you more because it affects you personally. Most of the white Americans you know are not particularly prejudiced; most of the latinos I know are not particularly prejudiced. Heck, most of the white Americans and blacks I know are not particularly prejudiced. So if we look at our friends as evidence for the openness of our own culture and we look at the people who discriminate against us as evidence of the racism of another culture, we are demonstrating a lack of perspective.
And anyway, some of my best friends are white!
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: (I say that not for your benefit, but for people like Robespierre that wonder why those of us who propose no solutions are responding.)
No, our problems came up when you guys started repeating the same one liners over and over at me. "You don't know what its like to be black" or "you deny that there is any racism." I responded as I did to try to urge you to talk about something else and stop brow beating me with these platitudes.
quote: we are discussing the nature and manifestations of racism in modern society,
Afirmative action is the biggest manifestation of racism in modern society. And its not just some un-informed individual, but the government specifically changing standards for people based on the color of their skin. I think thats pretty relevant. Also, I have pointed out that I think this is the source of many of the problems. AA and the entitlement attitude are two of the things that keep race relations in the state in which they are now. I say that while the gov. tilts the laws in favor of minorities, there will be no racial harmony. Minorities will feel justified in hating whites, and whites will resent minorities for getting gov. goodies.
Other components of racism are less obvious and their solutions like-wise. Some good-ole-boy who doesn't want to live within 10 miles of a black family, well honestly there's no hope for this person. The only way to alleviate that kind of racism is to allow time to take its course. The more people interact and live and work together, the harder it is for the good-ole-boy to see blacks as blacks, and not as individuals.
Leto II said:
quote: Storm Saxon is making excuses and blaming minorities for the problems caused by racism against them, but he'll gladly ignore me because "he just don't like me, mommy."
It's people like SS that make me not want to post here any more.
What is this crap? Are you trying to make a point or are you just being a pest? Its people like Robespierre that DON'T WANT you to post here anymore, unless you can think of something to say that doesn't involve whining.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that you can and have experienced racism, but I don't believe that it's quite the same, because you can only experience racism within a subset of American culture, but when you turn on the TV you see mostly people like you.
So...the racism I experience isn't as bad as the racism you experience because I can turn on the TV and see people 'like myself' (noting of course that there are hispanics on tv, so it becomes not a question of 'when' but 'how much')? Is this what you're saying? If so, I guess I would have to disagree. To turn the tables, would racism that you experience *personally* be somehow 'made better' by being able to turn on the TV and seeing a cop show with lots of latinos? If someone called you a stupid wetback, you would feel better about it, or it would be mitigated, after a night of Univision? I don't understand how this could be as it isn't for me.
See, the thing is is that you *say* that you experience dominant culture, but it's clear that you don't consider yourself a *part of* dominant culture so whatever you may think, it's actually not so. Moving through so-called dominant culture isn't the same as being a part of it, no? So, I think you're making an assumption and extrapolating from yourself to someone in so-called majority culture and perhaps engaging in a bit of the grass is greener on the side thinking, if I may be so bold in saying so.
I would like to point out out that if you're saying that shows that are mostly white are so because of racism, I actually think the problem is that people want to see other people like themselves. Bernard Goldberg in 'Bias' makes the point that what black people and white people watch on television are totally different. Black people watch black shows with lots of black characters. White people make white shows with lots of white characters. Though he didn't mention it, I assume it holds true for hispanics. So, your point abot television isn't an indication of racism but simply just an aspect of the human condition. People like to see others like themselves, by and large. Lots of white people on Univision and BET? Not any more than I've seen the reverse of on mainstream TV and certainly less, it seems to me. This goes back to minority cultures leading the way. If you want to promote color blindness in white culture, start in 'your' own back yard.(edit: That sounded kind of dickish. Sorry. The point of this thread is, perhaps, that all cultures should struggle equally in being blind to color. I'm not trying to lay the burden totally on 'minorities'.)
That said, I don't doubt that you'd like to see more hispanics on TV. I believe you when you say that it bugs you. I hope all of the various cultures in the US can get to a point where we see each other for who we are and ignore the color of their skin. Until that time,though, could't it be said that there are certain things inherent to being a minority that aren't the result of racism but simply just a part of not having enough numbers to be profitable? You interpret it as being racist, but I don't necessarily see that it is. Are you going to hang billboards in hispanic or black neighborhoods of white people? No. Are you not going to do so because you're racist and think there's something wrong with white people? No. Currently, people want to see others like themselves and potraying white people in black neighborhoods just wouldn't sell.
I understand that it rankles you. However, I can assure you that even if every show on television had a cast of hispanics from key grip to director to all the actors, the racism you experienced would still hurt you as much because it's a personal issue that you experience and must resolve personally and not a social issue that is resolved socially.
Of course, maybe I'm totally wrong and just don't get it. Maybe we're both making assumptions. Dunno.
quote: I think the racism of minorities toward whites stands out to you more because it affects you personally.
Goes without saying. And vice versa.
quote: Most of the white Americans you know are not particularly prejudiced; most of the latinos I know are not particularly prejudiced. Heck, most of the white Americans and blacks I know are not particularly prejudiced. So if we look at our friends as evidence for the openness of our own culture and we look at the people who discriminate against us as evidence of the racism of another culture, we are demonstrating a lack of perspective.
Didn't respond to this and I meant to. Just wanted to let you know that I totally agree. I'm not making the case that minorities are racist in the sense that they all hate white people. Most of the racism that I'm talking about is really more of the belittling white people or not seeing them for people kind of racism, not the burning cross on the lawn kind of racism. And, yes, I recognize that most people get along with each other and like one another. You only have to look at how rates of inter-race marriage and dating are skyrocketing to see evidence of that.
*******************************************
I'd also like to tack on a point about subcultures within cultures as well. Being white doesn't mean you feel a part of the dominant culture, you know.... If you listen to many of the Mormons on this board, they certainly don't consider themselves a part of 'majority culture'.
posted
It's not browbeating, it's explaining why our perspectives are so different.
Nobody's denying your right to approach racism from the affirmative action standpoint, but I personally don't have a lot to say on that point. So if that's all you want to talk about, then we are each conversing with different people on this thread, but not with each other. And that's OK. It doesn't mean anything bad about you or about me.
The only point that we have in tangent is that, whether or not affirmative action exacerbates the problem of racism, I disagree with your position that it is the biggest manifestation of the problem. My legitimate (not in the sense that I'm right and you're wrong, but in the sense that this is a completely legitimate position for me to take) response to this is that, to think this, you may lack perspective. Storm Saxon says that perhaps it is I who lacks perspective, and here we agree that we each have reasons for our beliefs and we simply agree to disagree. When he doesn't like something I said, he tells me how he takes it, but doesn't label the spriti in which I said it. You, on the other hand, accuse me of browbeating and say I am not adding anything to the conversation by pointing out what appears to me to be a lack of perpective. You paint this discussion in terms of attempts to silence you by a sinister or mislead PC autocracy. This is why my conversation with Storm is more cordial, despite our fundamental disagreement.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main brunt of the brow beating was coming from Rakeesh.
quote: You should have get rid of that same pretense, Robespierre. The pretense that things aren't radically different.
You're really going to have to get over this insistence on not being told what you think when you keep saying that you know what it's like to be black, though you've never experienced it.
I'm not going to be drawn into a discussion of solutions when you glory in the fact that you don't know what the problem is.
I am suggesting the problem is more subtle than that, and just telling yourself over and over again, "I'm color-blind, I'm not a racist," isn't going to solve the problem.
The problem is that our society, for all its pretense of color-blindness, is not in fact color blind. You cannot deny this.
I perhaps have been shifting some of my frustration with Rakeesh's constant referral to points already covered, to you.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
TV of course was just one example, Storm, but my point is that while you may be a minority in one setting, you are still part of the majorit when you leave that setting. It doesn't make being discriminated against less offensive each individual time, but it is particularly oppressive when you know that you might encounter hatred, out of the blue, anywhere you go. (And when I "pass" for a white American--and I wish there was a better term, because I am white and I am American, but you know what I mean--and someone confides bigoted feelings to me, it feels the same as if they were attacking me directly, because suc a person only thinks more highly of me because they don't know my "dark secret.") I think this leads to that attempt to create solidarity, which you correctly point out can give rise to "reverse-racism." Minority members seek each other out, because in our barrios we get to feel what it's like to be just like everybody else. Maybe minorities seek out shows that focus exclusively on them because they get to feel what members of the majority feel all the time. To the extent that this gives us solidarity and a place to feel safe, this may not be a bad thing, but it can easily pass that point and become racism toward the majority, and that's just as wrong.
I am not black, but I find black exploitation comedy offensive, in that perpetuates the worst stereotypes about African Americans. (I am aware that somebody could counter with the charge that I prefer to see blacks who are acting white. *shrug* I guess I would like to see neither extreme. I want to see minorities keeping their unique flavors without being living stereotypes. Novels are so much better at showing you real people than sitcoms are. Gloria Naylors characters certainly aren't "acting white," but they aren't two-dimensional stereotypes either.) I personally don't want to see scores of shows with only Latinos in them. I want there to be a variety of Latinos in the entertainment I see, so that kids of all backgrounds don't grow up with the unspoken conception that all you can be as a Latino is a drug dealer. I want TV and movies to reflect the world I believe already exists in many places, where people have friends within and outside of their own groups, and people in all cultures have a wide variety of talents (and failings). I want humor to not be based so frequently on the ways that members of minorities pronounce things.
quote:See, the thing is is that you *say* that you experience dominant culture, but it's clear that you don't consider yourself a *part of* dominant culture so whatever you may think, it's actually not so. Moving through so-called dominant culture isn't the same as being a part of it, no?
It's not a zero-sum game. I simultaneously experience the majority culture in its fullness, and I experience it as a Latino. I don't live in a barrio, my wife is not Latina, and we don't speak Spanish at home. We live like most white Americans live. And there is no seethiing resentment in me for this. Our neighbors and our friends are majority-culture Americans, and our friends do not act with bigotry. It's more like being a it schizophrenic, I guess, because I can't say that I am never not aware of being Latino, but I don't feel I'm simply moving through the culture. Actually (And I know this verges on the "most of my friends are . . ." line) I love the American culture. Finding faults is not the same as not loving it. I lived in the South (I don't count Central Florida as being in the South, hence my use of past-tense), and I love all the truly positive value of southern culture.
quote:I actually think the problem is that people want to see other people like themselves.
I think that this is true because it makes people feel safe. And I think that racism, as evidenced by people in all cultures, has its roots in the same fear that leads people to prefer to see only people like themselves in their entertainment.
quote:The point of this thread is, perhaps, that all cultures should struggle equally in being blind to color.
I can agree with this. I'm not sure what the best way to bring this about is, but I aree in principle.
quote:Most of the racism that I'm talking about is really more of the belittling white people or not seeing them for people kind of racism, not the burning cross on the lawn kind of racism.
My point about understanding and acknowledging the unassailable principles people hold applies just as much to you as to your apparent opponents. Many people here, myself included, disagree with your premise and will probably never change their minds. You have to ask yourself what the goal of this conversation/debate/argument is. If your goal is to get people to agree with you and say you are right, I highly doubt you will meet with much success. If your goal is to understand where other people are coming from, I think you may have some success, but by being inflammatory (whether or not you started it), you decrease the likelihood of other people wanting to know about you. This may not matter to you, but recognize that the members of Hatrack, by and large, view this place as a community and each other as friends. If you do not wish to be a part of such a community, that is your choice, but maintaining a civil tone goes a long way toward establishing your credibility as a member of the community.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Racism won't abate until children are in the same school with each other, side-by-side, grappling with wisdom. I think most of the good schools understand that, and consequently, are open to affirmative action policies. I believe in letting the schools choose their own admissions criteria.
For government contracts, there is another story. I don't know. It depends. I don't know. It depends on the business and how important the work is, efficiency isn't everything, and we have to be willing to pay a little more if it's going to a fledging business which could use the money the most. I don't have a clear answer.
Then we have professions like actors and entertainers, and that's when I say, "Absolutely." When you are putting on a play, you are making a tacit argument about how the world both is and ought to be.
That and I have a friend in Broadway who is playing Jim in Big River, and that is the end of his opportunities, because of casting. He is a superior performer by any definition of the term, but there are a finite amount of spots. Talk about demoralizing. I think OSC did a column on this a while ago.
Then we have patronage positions: legal clerks, interns, pages, positions that aren't designed to go to the most qualified, but are designed to teach and give experience and wisdom to the young, and with those positions, I think that we should broaden the definition to make those teach the young and help those who otherwise wouldn't be exposed.
I don't believe in destroying affirmative action just as I don't believe in ever taking away preferences for first generation college students or preferences for legacy students. I do believe that these qualifications should only be marginally viscious, with each industry taking a look at the makeup of their particular industry, and trying to work out a balance for the good of industry, and if it's a public institution, for the good of the public. I hope that answers your question.
____________________________________________
Robes,
People aren't merely individuals. You are part of an assortment of groups, as an engineer, as a human, as a hatracker, it's kind of like a ven diagram which defines yourself. It doesn't mean that you are adversarial to others you don't see in your group. This isn't some sort of competition. Rather, you just acknowledge that our identity is tied through history, and changes every moment based on your interactions and interrelations, and you aren't some immutable thing that can only be shaped or defined by yourself.
There is a significant part of you that is an individual, but you can't just lop off the other parts and expect people to take you seriously when you talk about your rights as a person, because your rights as a person are tied to both your individuality and your place in the totality of human relations.
I don't know how people have come to believe in stern individuality.(Everything about us is plural. We aren't even individuals in our head. Who are you talking to when you talk to yourself or think to yourself?) I blame the austere belief in private property for perpetuating egoism. We should have an understanding of private property commensuate with our murky situation as private individuals. But my belief in private property is less stern than our current conception, though I'm not some pinko, as some uncharitable interpretation of the previous passage may lead one to believe.
I understand, and agree with your post. In my own defense, I would point out that I am not trying to change Rakeesh or Megachirops' minds. I was trying to explain how I feel about the topic, explain why i believe what I do, and was being assailed by those who disagree with me. The attack was not on what I was saying, not a dispute of the facts. But rather, it was a blanket dismissal of my point of view because "i don't know what its like to be black." I could tolerate this once or twice, but it kept coming up over and over. People responding directly to me would address me as denying the existance of racism or some other point which was already explained long ago. I felt as though I was being railroaded by a bunch of one-liners. Perhaps I should have reacted differently. I only relate this out of a desire to explain my "inflammatory" remarks.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what else to say, Icarus. There is no way that we can really experience what the other has experienced or really know what it's like to stand in the other person's shoes. I hope we can each get to a point where we can understand our respective viewpoints such that we can come to agreement on how things 'really' are.
I really appreciate having had this conversation with you.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed a staggering tendency of people (both online and off) not only to ignore their opponents' conclusions, but also not to pay attention to the actual words they use. I don't really approve of this, but it happens, and there's not much anyone can do about it.
The Internet gives us two great advantages over real life debates: we have time to think about what we say, and there is a readable log of what has already been said. I've found that if I feel like someone is not addressing what I've said, it's much more productive to point that out calmly than to get upset about it.
The important thing for everyone to remember is that in an argument, if you must attack, attack only the ideas and never the person. Likewise, if your ideas are being attacked, you should not take it as an attack on your character.
I do recognize that personal attacks are made quite frequently in arguments, and this is unacceptable. However, it's very rarely useful to get upset or inflammatory in response, even less so to directly insult the person in return--though I'm not saying this has necessarily happened or not happened here. The best solution, in my experience, is to point out the personal attacks as calmly as possible and ask the person to stop. If they don't, ignore them.
Your denial that white people "swim in a sea of prejudice" is a suggestion that you know what it's like to be black. The statement meant that white people in America have it easier than minorities in America. Your response was, "What are you talking about? I don't see that."
So kindly stop telling me you're not claiming to understand what it's like to be a minority, or that you're only talking about affirmative action, and also the whining about my "browbeating". You and I are not two of the most constantly-courteous people around, I can tell, so stop acting like a damsel in distress, wouldya? You wanna throw some fire around? Be prepared to take some warmth in return. I was not "assailing" you, and you're certainly not a victim here.
You denied that whites have it better in America than minorities.
quote:I am not going to question your personal situation, however, I have not seen this so-called white priviledge. There is a higher number of poor whites in this country than any other group. White priviledge implies that whites get special advantages over people who are not white. While I am sure that this does happen, it is not as all pervasive as you would have us believe. Most businesses are more concerned with making money than about someone's skin color.
So don't talk to me about one-liners, because I specifically addressed every single part of this quote from you. The one-liner maker here is you, because you sidestep questions concerning this statement you made and tell me to clam up and offer a solution, or shriek, "I'm not saying racism doesn't exist," when in fact I never claimed you did. The closest I came to that was the "You can't deny that," which was a mistake of mine. It wasn't meant to suggest you do deny that, but merely to reiterate what is in my opinion a fact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and the difference between minority vs. white racism, and white vs. minority racism?
When a white person in America experiences racism, nine times out of ten the worst that happens is their feelings are hurt. When a minority in America experiences racism, frequently their educational, employment, housing, and pay prospects are hurt. This is not to say that happens all the time, but Storm, be real. You and I feel bad when we see prejudice against us. That's about it. Doesn't hurt our jobs, our grades, and throughoug about seventy percent of America we don't have to deal with it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You take it as fact that in order to understand the racial situation in america, one must be black. This is the message I am getting from you. You say that there is no possible way for me to deny white priveledge because I am not black. That they only way I could know about this topic is if I were black. I fundamentally disagree with you on this point, and as saxon75 pointed out, it is fruitless to take it further.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I don't. Where did I say that? I have only said you cannot understand what it's like to be a minority in America, when you implied you did in the statement I quoted. By denying that whites in America get an automatic bonus-often subtle and unmentioned-whereas minorities don't, you are insisting that you also have a deep and profound understanding of what it is to be a minority in America.
You're getting a different message from me either because you want to, to avoid addressing my other points-and I'm inclined to believe this since I've belabored it several times now-or because I'm not communicating clearly.
No one "understands the racial situation in America", because no one has personal experiences from every or even most races in America. Where you and I differ is in the opinion that whites have it better than minorities in America simply by virtue of their skin-color. You have said you don't believe this. Therefore not only are you asserting an understanding far beyond your own personal experience, but you're also suggesting that everyone who believes otherwise has a hidden agenda for thinking the way they do.
But bow out if you like.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: whites have it better than minorities in America simply by virtue of their skin-color.You have said you don't believe this.
You are continuing with the same line of reasoning here. Does your first statement describe racism? I would say so. You are saying that whites are better off because of their skin color, that could also read: Whites are better off because of racism. And what did I say about racism? I said that of course it occurs, I acknowledge that there exists racism. So when you say, "you don't believe this" you are wrong. Where we disagree is in its scope. You seem to imply that it is omnipresent in our country. I say that it is neither as widespread nor as severe as you say.
quote:Therefore not only are you asserting an understanding far beyond your own personal experience, but you're also suggesting that everyone who believes otherwise has a hidden agenda for thinking the way they do.
This is the part where you say that i don't understand the situation, and that its beyond me and I have no hope of understading, because I am white.
Now if I cannot understand the situation because it so far beyond the horizon of my perception, how do you justify having any opinion on the subject at all? Is this issue somehow different for you? Do you know the history of my life well enough to know that I am not qualified to talk about racism?
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
OK, so what you're really saying is this: whites have it better than minorities in America, but it doesn't really happen very often. It's nowhere near as bad as you say. When the fact of the matter is I'm talking about an unconcious, force-of-habit semi-segregation. I'm not saying whites have it better than minorities because whites are all or even most prejudiced against minorities, in fact I was specific about that. The "sea of privilege" you denied existed-or do you acknowledge that that statement was incorrect? You've contradicted yourself-isn't concious racism. It's the benefit white people have in America vs. minorities by virtue of being the descenedants of the ruling race for almost a half a millenium, up until about fifty years ago.
And you're telling me that it's not "widesread". White people have been dominant in America as we know it since the sixteenth century. Let's say that ended (I'll be generous) about thirty years ago. The "sea of privilege" you deny exists is a product of demographics and history. I'm not saying it's your or my fault, I'm stating a simple fact. And it is a fact. Given another fifty, hundred, two hundred, however many years, this sea of privilege that you and I swim in unknowingly will have dried up, but that takes time. My recognition of this fact in no way suggests I favor affirmative action today, because that's like trying to treat gangrene by amputation or bloodletting.
I don't say it's beyond your academic understanding. I'm a white man. I understand it in the intellectual sense. But when you cavalierly brush aside the idea of the "sea of privilege", you are demonstrating that you just don't understand. This suggests that just because no minority was told, "Blacks need not apply," at the job you applied for, then there is no "sea of privilege".
You benefit from past racism because white people hold the majority of the cards in America, and the majority of white people are more comfortable with white people, and less likely to interact with minorities anyway.
Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then I withdraw my assertion that you don't understand. But I won't pretend you said that before.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
and I feel like being an a** so I'm going to repeat myself. Take it or leave it ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
:![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
