Just saw this on Facebook, thought it was worth sharing :
"I was angry when I drew this, and I'm angry writing this and I've been angry a lot lately because I get told and see others get told to not make the issues faced by black and brown bodies in America about race when in fact It’s impossible to “make” it about race because things have always been about race in this country where subjugation and marginalization and prejudice and willful ignorance and myopia are so finely ingrained into its past and present that even the most blatant forms of injustice and RACISM can be ignored by/justified to people with lazy notions like “Race baiting” and "colorblindness". Everything in this country is about race. It was built on the backs of a people who have always been, since the time they were stolen from their homeland, suffering under the system of a country created for others at their expense. There needed to be a civil war in order to end slavery, and even then, do people actually think that things were just fine and dandy for black people after that? There has always been a struggle for black people because there have always been people who don’t see black people with the same level of humanity as they see themselves, and there have been, as time goes by, more and more people who are simply unwilling to look at the past because it’s easier for them to not identify any problems, even though others don’t have that luxury. After slavery, there were people who still saw black people as slaves, after the Jim Crow segregation laws were lifted, there were still people who wanted white only fountains and pools (and I’m referencing pools for a reason). There’s a traceable history of disenfranchisement that’s the cause of the perpetuation of poverty in black communities, which is, in turn, responsible for improper education, which is, in part, responsible for the massive rates of incarceration of black people, yet It’s somehow the black American’s fault for not working hard enough, despite the fact that they’ve had to work the hardest to get to where they are today, and there are still rivers that need crossing.
What baffles me and what frustrates me is how easily people claim that things aren’t about race, when even a little bit of effort to see what’s all around you can tell you otherwise. There are people who think that saying “I’m not into black girls” despite the fact that they’re upwards of 500 million of them on the planet and the color of their skin is the only prerequisite that they failed to meet, who think that it’s just a matter of preference, and not terribly racist, and it makes me sad that I have to watch my little cousin, as beautiful as she is dark, scared of being in the sun because she "can’t afford to be any darker.” and then hear backlash towards the first black first lady for reminding black girls that they rock. There are people who think that experiencing police brutality isn’t a particularly regular, fatal byproduct of being black, despite the fact that police are terrorizing and murdering black people at a rate of 1 every 28 hours. I had to make my 10 y/o cousin who’s really into battlefield promise me to throw away the plastic gun he showed me when he got home from school one day and to never go anywhere with it again, and I have to hear my 17 y/o cousin, an aspiring police officer, explain to me that if black people like Mike Brown were just more compliant, cops wouldn’t have to kill them, as if there aren’t a myriad of cases where they have still been shot in spite of their compliance, and even if there wasn't, that a police officer shooting an unarmed civilian isn’t a terrible overuse of force in the first place, justified by the labeling of “thug” (read “nigger”). I have to watch the people I love internalize and assimilate to these systems and have the issues they have to face washed out and invalidated every time CNN covers a story and asks “Is this really about race?” and every time FOX covers a story and says “this isn’t about race” and at every utterance of “All lives matter” and I’m sick of it.
It annoys me that I have friends who’s minds are already oriented towards justice, especially those who have gone to UWC, but in spite of that I rarely hear anything from them about one of the worst human issues in the the country they live in. Being outspoken about this isn’t a black thing, it’s a human thing- a matter of empathy and if you’re aren’t against the system, you are supporting it; allowing acts of violence to persist unchecked. And I truly believe that if they were to also put even a fraction of the energy they’d normally put in things like climate change into race issues, that it would lead to much bigger steps in the right direction. The blaring lack of empathy from a lot of people from the caribbean (certainly not all, but still) towards black americans also troubles me, because it’s not fair to compare the rise out of slavery in the Caribbean to the US because the two occurred under different conditions. White supremacy is a weight that continues to stunt the growth of the black american even today. To carry not only the force of a country that has always tried to push you down, but also the emotional toll it puts on you whilst being told that all of it is either your fault or an overreaction on your part isn’t something I’d wish on my worst enemy."
I really shouldn't post this. But there's Bushmill's left and I'm not quite asleep yet.
These discussions never seem to get anywhere, but I suspect that's because the actual progress is infinitesimal. As such, we must have a million such discussions if we are to move an inch.
Yet movement is vital, so a million discussions we must have.
Something perpetually lacking in these discussions is empathy. White people can't think black, and black people are sick to death of thinking white. The minority lets out a wounded, primal howl and the majority says "there there, it isn't as bad as all that" thinking that it will somehow make things better. Perhaps if we bash each other over the head with our misunderstandings one more time someone will see reason... but that's more of a wish than a goal.
White people read this rant and think to themselves that they've never participated in oppression. That they have contributed nothing to the negative outcomes that they acknowledge the minority experiences. They see that the situation has been made awkward and they don't like it. They know they can do nothing about it, yet they have the urge to try. So they attempt to reframe the argument in such a way where they are not personally culpable for the pain without recognizing that it's not an argument.
The minorities read this rant and affirm that they are the subject of constant oppression. That oppression is a binary state and that if one is not actively working to alleviate that oppression, one is actively working to perpetuate that oppression. They know they can do nothing about it so they have the urge to cry out, to make their white friends and colleagues and acquaintances SEE, for once, that they are NOT treated as equals, that racism did NOT die with the election of a black president, that while progress has been made it sure as fuck isn't enough and that how, in this free country of ours where everyone is guaranteed life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are they still subject to persecution, poverty and the perpetual short end of the stick?
By the very nature of the discussion, the minority is saying "this sucks, and there's nothing I can do about it." The majority can only say "this sucks, and there's nothing I can do about it." They're both right, and they're both wrong. There's no comfortable way to make things better. There's no easy way to make things better. So what we're left with is a perpetual discussion wherein the minority says "I know we've been letting on that things are okay, but they aren't, and we need to do something about it." The majority is put in the position of acknowledging they've been living a lie.
It sucks for everyone. The difference is, the suckitude is novel for the white folx.
I love my country. We're one of the least racist countries in the world. Doesn't mean we aren't racist. The level of racism is greater than we have been led to believe because the advances of the Civil Rights Movement would seem hollow. So us white folx are left with the uncomfortable truth the Civil War wasn't enough by a long sight. That MLK's dream is a long way from realized. That you think you got it tough but one of the quickest ways to find someone who's got it tougher is to look for darker skin.
So we have to listen to these. More importantly, we have to hear them. White cops have been killing black men for decades... the turning point we've reached is it's starting to not be okay. And when we acknowledge that we're forced to acknowledge that we haven't come a fraction as far as we thought and we've got a long damn way to go.
But we gotta go. And it's unpleasant, and it's a lot of work, and it's embarrassing, and it's personally shameful but fuck if I didn't have a cop pull me over and not write me a ticket because he realized I wasn't Hispanic.
- To carry not only the force of a country that has always tried to push you down, but also the emotional toll it puts on you whilst being told that all of it is either your fault or an overreaction on your part isn’t something I’d wish on my worst enemy."
What's really gonna bake your noodle is it isn't personal. We're on top, you're not, and most of the time you don't wanna stir things up by pointing out that isn't okay.
It isn't okay. But it also isn't going to change tomorrow. So read it, internalize it, recognize where it's coming from, and accept that luck is a skin color... at least, until we do something about it.
Luck is definitely a skin color.
You know how when you were a kid you probably wanted the bike that your friend had that was way cooler than yours? Or maybe you wanted the swing set his dad built in the back yard or the the basketball hoop in your pals driveway.... ?
Me? I wanted freckles.
I could tell pretty early on as a kid that the boys with freckles seemed to get better favor with the teachers. These boys were blue eyed, blonde haired or red-haired, but what they weren't were half-mexican brown kids. In short, I wanted to be like everyone else.
- And it's unpleasant, and it's a lot of work, and it's embarrassing,
Edit: PS. Last night in vancouver. Just got back to hotel room. Had a few. Forgive any errors please.
- I could tell pretty early on as a kid that the boys with freckles seemed to get better favor with the teachers.
Also
- Luck is definitely a skin color.
There's a word you used that TNG didn't use that changes the entire character of this discussion. Do you know what it is?
- However, I feel it is off putting to freckleds (or any favoriable skin type) to say they were just lucky.
"Just" lucky implies that the freckled kids have no innate skill or talent of their own. "Just" lucky implies that they do not face hardships. The only person implying this is you - and this is part of the problem.
A person can be lucky without being just lucky, and a person can acknowledge unfairness without chalking everything up to justice or the lack thereof.
"just" and "only" - two words I try to delete from my writing whenever I see them unless they truly cannot be done without. In cahoots with "merely," and so on. (Not at kb, but at readership: if you care about writing, go at these words like they are evil.)
They are words that take the power out of statements. Here they take power away from the subject, I think.
They are dismissive and minimizing words, often used to minimize the impact of potentially offensive or upsetting comments, or to downplay the actual message a speaker is trying to convey.
I think about "just" and "only" a lot. I delete them at least as frequently.
LA LA LA I AM WRITING THINGS TODAY CLEARLY
Thanks, I'm not a native English speaker but I'm trying my best. Any other problems? I'd love to improve my writing and speaking.
Hi, I actually teach ESL for a living and until you said something, I wouldn't have known that English is your second language. At the advanced level, "just" and "only" are words that native English speakers will capitalize on for sure in the context of an involved debate or argument.
You might consider brushing up of synonyms, antonyms and the degree of strength that these offer. For example, "anger" has synonyms like "irritation" and "fury" which are very different from one another. Similarly, qualifiers like "just" "only" and "in general" can also change the tone of what you say.
I have trouble with things like synonyms so I try to make use of a thersaurus. I've not considered the strenght of words. That seems inspiring.
I also think non native speakers can actually become advantaged when it comes to testing on English. I'm told a lot of natives don't touch the basics for a while so it seems I did better than a lot in the standardized testing of English simply because it is fresh in my mind. If you hear me speak though my minor accent betrays that I wasn't born here.
That said, I struggle with idioms and colloquial expressions. I remember being confused with "pulling your leg". Living in the South East for a time, there is a lot of idioms and expressions. Seems like most of what southerners say is idioms that make no sense to non native speakers and probably even Northerners. I also think it helps that US movies are so prolific and immitation goes a long ways. Just don't trust the depictions of southerners. The sound is way off and over dumbified.
Also, I started watching a lot of UK tv shows. It seems to help me since they seem to have a wider use of vocabulary. They also seem to have less idioms.
Yes, this is where English gets really hard (or any language for that matter). It takes a great deal of self-awareness and personal humility to master a language, because often we have to make mistakes on our own. In our first language, we have the luxury of being children and of being surrounded by people who will guide us to speaking that language "properly". As adults, we are expected to be much more capable and fairly or unfairly, that puts adult language learners in an awkward position.
All of that said, the more you engage with native speakers, the more you can start to notice patterns and connections. You absolutely did the right thing by letting people know that English isn't your first language. In my classes, I absolutely encourage students to engage in discourse and argument, but also to qualify their statements with things like, "In Spanish, this word has a negative connotation and that's not what I mean to express, but I don't have the language to say exactly what I want to, in English. The idea is like . . . " and again, that takes a lot of humility and strength to do.
Anyway, you express yourself pretty well. I agree whole-heartedly that native speakers do not know as much about grammar as English language learners do. At the end of the day though, language is one facet of good communication skills. Establishing rapport and engaging with others is really what the site is all about.
- I don't think I'd go that far. I feel it's a no brainer to say that minorities are often tasked with more work to get somewhere than someone who fits in with the majority. However, I feel it is off putting to freckleds (or any favoriable skin type) to say they were just lucky.
Imagine all of the problems you currently have. Then imagine you have all of those same problems, but are also black, or brown. There are lots of people of all colours and creeds who have a hard time (I've even been one of them), but the fact remains that if You're white, you're more likely to get a loan from a bank (even if your financial standing is identical to the person of colour next to you), you're less likely to be stopped by the police, and less likely to be arrested if you are stopped (even if your actions are identical). Juries are less likely to give you a harsh sentence if you do break the law.
when someone tells you you're lucky to be the freckled kid, they're not predjudiced, they're just telling you the truth. Sometimes you may not want to hear the truth, or it might hurt you, but that doesn't make it any less the truth.
The truth is that my friend Theron, one of the best pianists I've ever met and deserving of all the success he has, must be careful what kind of car he buys because he'll get pulled over if it's too nice, or too new, or too expensive. That's not an assumption, I'm relaying to you what has happened. My friend Esther was on the side of the road for more than an hour as the police called first her parents, then the insurance company because they didn't believe that the late model Lexus she was driving was hers, or that she lived in the upper class neighbourhood that her parents (doctors) have a house in. They thought, even though there was significant evidence to the contrary, that she had stolen the vehicle, and the address on her license, her name on the insurance and registration, and the word of her parents was not enough.
It's not the individual people in the system that are racist. The bank manager giving out the loan isn't a racist, and the cop that pulled you over might even be a person of colour. It's systemic.
I agree with you. The problem I'm trying to address is how we confront the public with the issue of racism. I think the message shouldn't draw comparisons with whites, as it adds an us vs them to the message. Instead, I think we should point out the hardships and stop there. I think nothing comes out of going farther.
For example, I was born in a country where my people have experienced genocide. I moved to the US with my surviving family. I was raised by my grandparents. My father died in the war and my mother giving birth. I've experienced ethic cleansing and racism at its worst. I can't but find myself at times drawing comparisons to my life and minorities. If I do that, I'd mostly see their problems as minor in comparison. Infact, I'm white as can be, and I'm been told by some that I'd have no clue what racism is like because I'm white. Those kind of messages almost alienated me and probably have others. I'm only saying don't draw comparisons or make it us vs them. Unite not alienate.
Again - it's not that you haven't experienced hardship. It's that based on your skin color, you are much less likely to continue to experience hardship.
I dated a Serbian. One of my best friends is Croatian. We hang out with Albanians. From a mile high, all anybody can really tell about any of them is they've got bushier eyebrows and eat more lamb. You need to be in the know to get the nuance of that particular ethnographic clusterfuck. On the other hand, a black kid can experience prejudice from across the street simply for being a black kid.
No one is saying white people don't experience hardship. What's being said is that white people don't experience hardship driven by their whiteness. It's not an easy discussion to have, but it's worth having. And those of us benefitting owe it to those of us suffering to have it on their terms.
I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying anything about whites not experiencing hardship or blacks. I'm simply saying don't draw comparisons. Just state the hardships alone without any comparisons to others. I'm saying the hardships stand alone without the comparisons. I actually think we agree because it seems you are arguing my point up until you start so say stuff like "more" or quantifiers about hardship. Just state that blacks experience prejudice and hardship with the current system. Don't make it "whites" vs "blacks". Make it minorities vs racists and you may find more numbers on your side.
A lot of whites know and want to stop the systematic racism. We don't need the us vs them'ers though. It makes it harder to fight racism in general if you are also alienating people who are weary of the message you speak but angry at the system you fight. They could be your ally but you only make them neutral with unfair comparisons.
Comparisons will happen. Relatives are so much easier to discuss than absolutes.
"Us v. Them" will happen. "We" are experiencing hardship because of "you." There is no other way to honestly have the discussion, and dishonest discussion is what has led to this boiling point.
You can be upset about it or you can accept it; the only person who cares is you.
I don't think there will be progress if we don't get the mainstream whites to agree. The truely worst racist is the one who knows there are inequalities and wants to continue such a system. But they are not the biggest danger to progress. The ones who don't care because it doesn't really affect them are the ones we need to win over.
I don't think we have as much progress towards change as some people suggest. Things are far worse for people who are different in this country. To convince the mainstream we need to change the dialog from "we are less lucky than whites" to "we can't get jobs because we are black". The former asks for sympathy; the latter asks for a solution. IT IS IMPORTANT to unite. I don't understand how that is so controversial as to warrant a response such as:
- You can be upset about it or you can accept it; the only person who cares is you.
and
- There is no other way to honestly have the discussion, and dishonest discussion is what has led to this boiling point.
Lastly,
- Comparisons will happen. Relatives are so much easier to discuss than absolutes. "Us v. Them" will happen. "We" are experiencing hardship because of "you."
sounds an aweful lot like some of the justifications for racism. I've heard a lot of the same arguments used to defend racist remarks about sterotyping a race. Yes comparisons are natural and sometimes justified. However, that is missing my point. My point isn't comparisons offer no merit. Instead they don't however, offer as much chance to unify people. If you go into peaceful negoations to end a war blaming the other side, the other side will be less inclined to end the war.
Both sides are viewing it as a war of words. Instead we should be convincing people there is no "Us" and "them". The shining example of what I want is MLK's I have a dream speech. He goes out of his way to include others. He of all should be an example of the dialog we use. I can't help but think you are standing in the way of progress if you disagree. Try looking at all the dialog on each side, from the view of both sides, and I think you'll see that it is not unlike what two enemies at war would say about each other. Wars end when peaceful dialog occurs between both sides or one side is destroyed or exhausted. In a war that hardly takes casualties, you only have peaceful dialog as a means to an end. Otherwise you are enlarging the gap between the sides, making the task of peacefully negotiating that much harder.
You keep couching this in terms of "should". The fact of the matter is, we're discussing a subject with deaths and riots involved. As they aren't your deaths and riots, you don't get to determine how the conversation happens.
Even if you did, calling me a racist is a truly bizarre way to go about it.
This is the way the conversation is going down. You don't get to have the conversation you want - you get to have the conversation that's happening. Your best move is to adapt to the facts on the ground, not refuse to engage until the conditions are more favorable to you.
I didn't call you a racist. I also didn't dismiss those deaths. The casaulties I'm talking about are the losses in the war on words. I just want to convince you that unifying everyone is the goal. I don't think you are anyone is intentionally alienating everyone in these dicusions. I'm only offering some sort of way to change a stagnant dialog. I want the dialog to move from angry blaming from both sides and into honest discussions that will inact real change. If we can't get away from the confrontational attitude that is like what we are having here, we won't bridge the gap between the sides. We need to move towards common goals in order to unify more people. If we extend these issues to minorities of all kinds we can make more headway.
For example, LBGT, even atheists, and of course other races other than blacks have similar oppression. If we unite all these fronts by generalizing the discussion to those groups, we can inact change that protects all people from discrimination. Blacks may well be one the most prosecuted in the current system. However, there is a lot of other goups experiencing similar plights that we could leverage to actually win this fight. Inclusive discussions will bring more momentum.
Complex issues require complex solutions. We could better combat police brutality and stave away all deaths by police brutality. We could allow equal pay and opportunity in the workplace for all minorities. Banding together gives more minds via voters, protestors, and activists collectively working towards the problem that is public perception. Stop being confrontational and instead be forgiving and unifying.
Lasltly, you are inferring a lot from what I'm saying that I don't intend. I don't know your motivations or if you view me in some way that is clouding your view of my comments. I honestly think you can agree with me but I've said something that offended you. In that case, I'm sorry and hopefully the message is clearer if you hear it from someone else MLK:
- Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
You aren't paying attention. Listen:
- I know that you want unity between races.
- I know that you consider this black vs. white debate to be harmful and "stagnant."
- I know that you want to have a discussion about colorblindness and how we are all equal.
So far so good?
Here are the problem that you are refusing to acknowledge:
1) That's not the discussion.
2) That will never be the discussion.
3) You will never be in a position to determine the discussion.
Check this out. It's way up at the top:
- White people read this rant and think to themselves that they've never participated in oppression. That they have contributed nothing to the negative outcomes that they acknowledge the minority experiences. They see that the situation has been made awkward and they don't like it. They know they can do nothing about it, yet they have the urge to try. So they attempt to reframe the argument in such a way where they are not personally culpable for the pain without recognizing that it's not an argument.
I can't say this any plainer: you don't get to determine the terms of the discussion. So you've got a choice:
A) have this discussion on "their" terms
B) accept the status quo.
There is no third door. There is no outside the box. Race is being discussed in the united states in terms of oppression of minorities by the majority. You can join in, you can opt out, but you can't say "let's change the subject."
That doesn't sound like "a justification for racism." By the way - how on earth did you think that calling my speech racist would further the dialogue? Has that ever worked?
Here's Mirriam Webster on pragmatism:
a reasonable and logical way of doing things or of thinking about problems that is based on dealing with specific situations instead of on ideas and theories.
Here's Mirriam Webster on idealism:
a theory that ultimate reality lies in a realm transcending phenomena.
Idealists get martyred. Pragmatists make history.
- I've experienced ethic cleansing and racism at its worst.
I don't doubt it. My own grandfather survived Nazi Germany in the Netherlands, and refused to speak about what happened. All I know is some sort of vague story about working on a farm so his family didn't starve. I can only imagine what he saw, and I can only imagine it in comparison to the things that people saw in Poland. I don't know where you're from, or what you and your family experienced, but all I can give you is my most heartfelt condolences.
However, here's the problem with what you're saying. You're saying "I've seen so much worse than these people", when you should be saying "I can't believe we are still treating people this way. What happened to me and my family should never happen again." Even though their suffering may not be as intense as yours (though experiences vary widely), it is important to remember that it is sustained. It is daily for their entire lives, inside of a society that, in many ways, refuses to believe that suffering still exists.
Is the fact that people say you have no idea what racism is a frustrating reality for you? sure. I can comprehend and commiserate with that frustration (and to me, what often feels like a helplessness). What you have to remember is that it's not about you. it's about the people who still suffer.
I'm saying just clean the message up so as to not add any adversarial tones towards potential allys. That's it. I'm not doing a good job at though apparently.
It's all cool, friend. discussion is what we do here. You've got a view, and KB and I are showing you some of the holes we see in that view.
This is my friend Theron. We did a combined concert at one point where the orchestra and jazz ensemble were playing in the same concert. Before the show, a few of us were hanging around, and he started to play the piano. I had to stop what I was doing and just listen. To put that into context, I'm the sort of person who won't stand for an ovation when everyone else in the concert hall is. For the Cleveland Orchestra (one of the best orchestras in North America). I don't give out praise lightly.
I wouldn't take your word on it simply because you are self described as being hard to please. After all, you are biased when it comes to yourself.
However, after watching the video, pay your friend Theron a complement from a stranger. He is a great pianoist.
I will let him know that.
- I wouldn't take your word on it simply because you are self described as being hard to please.
It comes from being a music student for a long time (applying for doctoral schools next year), and having incredibly high standards for my own playing. I have a joke "How do you describe a music student? someone who spends 8 hours a day in a tiny box being disappointed in themselves." Unfortunately, that attitude has become so heavily ingrained that I cannot turn it off. It ruins some things for me, but also allows me to appreciate the truly great performances and performers.
I think part of the problem with this approach is its reverse psychology. These internet lecutres are quite common, and last I checked someone being lectured about their bad behavior or shortcomings tends not to respond in a constructive or positive way. Think about what happens when someone tells you not to do something. Often, your instinctive, subconscious response is to want it even more, or defy the alternate approach that's being offered to you.
It's hard, because there doesn't seem to be a clear or obvious nurturing solution. But browbeating people isn't going to motivate them to change their behavior. Quite to the contrary, it may stubbornly reinforce their resistance.
I don't want anyone to think that I don't believe we have some issues to work out, but can someone explain to me how this isn't just preference?
"There are people who think that saying “I’m not into black girls” despite the fact that they’re upwards of 500 million of them on the planet and the color of their skin is the only prerequisite that they failed to meet, who think that it’s just a matter of preference, and not terribly racist"
There are also millions of people who are blonde that I would not go out with, simply because I much prefer girls with brunette/brown hair. In addition to this, I also probably wouldn't go out with someone taller than me, just because I find it unattractive. Many girls won't go out with guys shorter than them. How would it be different if I said I wouldn't date someone who had dark skin, because I don't find it as attractive.
I think that preference exists and racist exclusion exists too. To say, "I'd never date a black girl," to me is racial exclusion. To say, I prefer blonde hair is preference. Our preferences tend to be a byproduct of past experiences. That's just a fact. You grew up next to a gorgeous girl with red hair and always dreamed of kissing her... but never did. Guess what? You're likely to have an attraction for redheads. Still, if you're not interested in forging new experiences, you're stuck only preferring a small subset of the opposite sex. Your loss.
If you grew up only eating McDonalds, you're likely to eat similarly as an adult. Guess what dude? There's a HUGE banquet out there, with many flavors, shapes, sizes etc. and they're all worth getting to know. Humans can be awesome, all hues of them. My advice to anyone reading is to take the time to get to know as many as you can, regardless of ethnicity. Attraction is born out of interaction.
Adding:
"I'd never date a black girl" generally means "I don't find any of the black girls currently in front of me attractive enough to risk my self-esteem on them." Dating across races requires a little bit of daring, a little bit of xenophilia. Far easier to say "I do not wish to be rejected by an other that I do not fully understand. Far easier to stick with what I know."
However, it generally means this from people who do not understand that by dismissing someone based on race, they are dismissing that race, not the individual or individuals in front of them. By attempting to spare everyone the personal rejection, they have created the general rejection.
I'll admit it - I've never dated anyone black. Hell - there was one black girl in my entire school district and I wouldn't have dated her if she were white. So in a way, I definitely grew up only eating McDonald's. But hot diggity damn I have been surrounded by stunningly attractive black women.
Just never when I've been single, dammit.
It takes more confidence to not only risk rejection, but risk rejection outside of your typical understanding. I think that the conflation of "taste" and "race" is subconscious and unintentional, and I don't think it's likely to go away.
That is, until all that's left is various shades of mocha.
- It takes more confidence to not only risk rejection, but risk rejection outside of your typical understanding.
Since then, I've had a MUCH more open mind in regards to what is and is not appealing.
Aside from my being a spoken for man, there is LITERALLY not a race, ethnicity or "type" that I would out of hand reject. That's just ridiculous. As Michener says, "The world is my home." -Why would I voluntarily close off any part of it?
Love the food comparison. That drew a very clear and vivid parallel for me to people who refuse to try new foods, or rather specifically, those people that grow up on 3 different food items and as adults refuse to eat anything else (chicken nuggets for ex.).
Also, if someone(A) would refuse to date someone(B) because their hair color wasn't the one color that (A) preferred, I find that a very clear statement about what (A) cares about in potential mates: their looks and only their looks. "Sorry, blondes, you could be totally perfect for me in every way, but because of your hair, I'm going to refuse to date you. I'm just not attracted to it. '
Ugh. If you meet the perfect person and she is blonde or brown or one leg is shorter than the other or she wears glasses and you didn't think you liked glasses or she is taller than you or she is shorter than you or she has a really high pitched voice, I think you are dumb for letting that factor stop you. No one is perfect, no one is going to check off every box on your list especially if some of those boxes are things totally out of anyone's control.
Guys who don't date women who are taller than them are insecure about their height. Women who won't date shorter probably are too. I have dated tall and short and in between. Guess what! Someone's height has BASICALLY NO IMPACT on whether you get along with them. I have never broken up with a guy and thought, "Well, if only he were taller, maybe..." or "I'm never dating a tall man again, they're all assholes" or "Man, you know what the worst thing about him was? He was shorter than me!"
It's funny how people try to make physical attraction and beauty out to be the most #1 important thing in their partner, yet it is the quality over which everyone has the least control. I can learn more, earn more, work harder, be kinder, whatever, if I want to be. I can alter my behavior. But everyone gives people a chance (or not) based on looks and unless you get plastic surgery your general face-ness and body-ness is fixed at birth.
Everyone wants to pick someone who won the genetic lottery but the thing is the lottery is at least 75% chance. The quality of having 'won the jackpot' has literally nothing to do with the actual person inside that actual body and skin. The only thing the jackpot bestows is increased attention of would-be sexual/romantic partners.
It is like cars. Some people want the most expensive/prettiest/whatever cars because it is important to them that everyone else know they can afford it or whatever. Some people show off and shore up their ego by way of their little red sports car. They wanna show that their dick is bigger.
Get over it.
One of my favorite men used to shut down the "who has the biggest dick"-style discussions that would spring up between him and his friends, by announcing that his was small. Had to be the smallest in the room. With a smile and twinkle in his eye. He was secure. And it shut everyone else up thank god.
- One of my favorite men used to shut down the "who has the biggest dick"-style discussions that would spring up between him and his friends
Yeah, I'm not saying it's a universal male experience, but rather one that happened commonly among his group of male friends.
(And as I think on it, I'm not even going to say I ever knew those friends of his enough to be able to say they were good people or douches. I have to say that that conversational trope does make them seem a little hypermasculine and overly competitive.)
A rare bfx badge appears.
You managed to incorporate McDonalds into that which is pretty fantastic, but the badge disclaimer is more that I badged this because of how overwhelmingly positive that second paragraph is. I hope it's something more people read, because it is such an inclusive and genuine way of looking at the world. If I saw this 8 months ago it would have been a major put-off, but now it's exactly the kind of way I've started looking at things (and part of that is from reading The Power of Now, so thanks again for that one). Exclusion breeds exclusion, the more groups you throw blanket statements over the more self-serving and insular that behavior becomes. Life live, it's too short, get to know everyone.
I have interacted with plenty of people with blonde hair, and plenty of girls taller than me, and even after all of that interaction I still don't feel attracted to any of them. Would it be better for me to broaden the types of people I hang out with? Absolutely. But, it's not like if you have a gay man interact with women for a long time he will suddenly become straight. Preferences are very much biology.
Imagine if everyone started ruling out groups of people based on physical characteristics they'd observed in the people they weren't attracted to.
I mean, i guess that means I can't date guys, my dad has a dick and I don't find him attractive.
Fucked on girls too, I'm not interested in the slightest in my mother.
Even if you wanna go less extreme, let's just consider this:
- I have never dated/been attracted to anyone younger than me, does that mean from now on (10 years of dating experience) I should just ask someone their birthday and rule them out?
- I have never dated/been attracted to anyone in a frat, does that mean I should refuse to date all men in frats?
- Never dated a redhead, should I rule all of them out? Freckles? Curly hair?
It's a terrible, illogical idea to start drawing sweeping conclusions about what you like and don't like because you have not found yourself liking it before. Having never consciously been inclined towards something does not mean you never will be. It just means it hasn't happened for you yet. Maybe it will or won't, but in the meantime you're being super close-minded.
Why would anyone want to limit their options like that, I just don't get it. I certainly would not deliberately pick people one after the other that fit a very specific mold, physical attraction, personality, whatever. I am put off by people who remind me of certain exes. If I was deliberately choosing from an even narrower pool of candidates I think I would just be reminded of my exes all the time. No, I know why things didn't work with my ex; time to try something different.
Why would you insist your partners fit a specific checklist that is the same for all of them, that is like playing a broken record and thinking that if you change the turntable the problem with the record will be fixed. No honey you gotta switch up the record.
I'm not ruling it out based on one person though. I have seriously never seen a redheaded person who I find attractive. I would therefore absolutely say that I wouldn't date a redheaded person. You're making my argument out to be if I find one person in that group that I'm not attracted to, I wouldn't be attracted to any of them. I'm saying I have never found ANYONE who has red hair attractive enough to date. I'm not creating a model that someone needs to fit.
In fact, if one day I did find someone who was blonde, or red haired, or taller than me who I did find attractive I may date them, but right now I feel like it is completely fair for me to say I wouldn't date someone with red or blonde hair or someone who is taller than I am. Just the same way I would say I wouldn't date a guy. I'm just not attracted to men.
It is preference. To think otherwise is idiotic and missing the point of how preferences work, especially sexually-based preferences. Some women don't like men who have ginger hair. Some do. Some men don't like other men with larger genitals. Some women like tiny genitals. Is it not, then, by extension preference for/against skin colour? Is it racist to prefer women of say, Korean descent over other women of Caucasian descent?
Hint: it isn't. The human mind is mostly unmapped, uncharted territory with a crude crayon-drawn map called psychology to guide us. Preference is something that is shaped and molded during our formative years up until the day that we die. It's why some people derive satisfaction from feet or having their nipples whipped with a day-old sausage. By extension and the barest fundamentals of logic, we can extrapolate that preference for skin colour is not, in fact racist, but is instead the same as any other like or dislike.
- It is preference. To think otherwise is idiotic and missing the point of how preferences work
- To think otherwise is idiotic
I'm glad to see the openness to other opinions and respect to debate still alive in our newfriends that have come to Hubski :^)
I'm not really attracted to blondes. Or black women. But I've gone out with both because I'm not the kind of shithead who will dismiss swaths of people as unattractive because they don't fit my personal ideal. That's the idiotic stance, to just chase one form of beauty and tacitly find another fundamentally unacceptable.
That's right blonde women, I'm calling you out for being uninteresting and the carpet doesn't match the drapes most times. How can I fuck someone whose pubes clash with their body hair?
- Some men don't like other men with larger genitals. Some women like tiny genitals.
And here I was thinking that it was wrong to break up with someone for their dick size.
Like, seriously, do you know anyone who started dating someone, had sex, and then decided that their partner's physical body was simply inaccurate, not up to code, and as a result, there was no desire to continue the relationship? Because
1) you're saying personality, compatibility, trust, etc, all don't matter when put up against ONE non-disabling physical characteristic;
2) you're saying that if there is a problem or issue or shortfall in a relationship, basically if there is any perceived shortcoming, what should be done is not talk about the problem, attempt to solve it, and work through it together as a team, but instead the dissatisfied partner should just say "well it's biology," and get the fuck out of dodge;
and
3) you're saying that you actually believe there is some human out there that is going to fit all of your expectations that you have of them aka "the perfect partner." And that therefore it's reasonable to completely end things based on traits generally outside of any person's control because you are certain you will find someone who, despite their same lack of control over their physical traits and appearance, does exist, will cross paths with you some day, will also like you, and that you will also fulfill all their ridiculous expectations.
Like, seriously, any one who says they didn't date someone because of their hair color is lying to you. Or hopelessly stupid. Or both.
I don't find anything constructive being said in this rant. I do see a lot of issues being boiled down to racism that are a lot more nuanced than, "White people in power specifically target black people."
"Everything in this country is about race. "
No, it isn't. Being outraged doesn't make you right.
- I don't find anything constructive being said in this rant
The solution to your problem exists already in your sentence: it's a rant. Exaggerated emotional writing coming from a place of anger and frustration. AKA, not an argument intended to be nuanced or used in debate. A rant is intended to provoke emotion in the listener. This rant is intended to show a glimpse of the rage and fear caused by not being white in America. Please do not dismiss it because of an exaggeration.
To piggyback on Quatrarius's comment, I don't think it is meant to be taken as THE argument on racism in America, I think it's mainly just, as you said, a rant. There's a few typos, a lot anecdotal "arguments", and more importantly -- it's posted on Facebook. There are a lot of good things said in here and a lot of things that may not hold any weight outside of an emotional level. I think, at it's most basic form, the post will at least get whoever reads it with an open mind to think.
Think about things they've heard a million times (which needs to happen with such widespread issues), and things they've never thought about.
I often feel out of place when I discuss topics like these because I have such an outside perspective. I'm white, upper middle class, and I've grown up in one of the less diverse suburbs of Detroit, which is far enough away from the actual city that I don't witness the social issues, either. But I see a lot of write-ups similar to this, though maybe a little less insightful often times. I tend to agree with most points when I read them, but I think quite a lot of people who are becoming more activist about these things are going about it the wrong way. I was reading a conversation from days (or maybe it was a month) ago on here where one person (regretfully I don't remember who) made a good point along the lines that it's really hard for those in the privileged class to accept the advantages they have. And it's entirely true. And repeatedly trying to make this point isn't going to convince them.
To be honest, I don't know what can convince them, but I do believe that there's some things that can become more standard in these dialogues to get people more engaged. Rather than merely promoting the identification of privilege, which is what I at least regularly witness online and in groups around my university, people need to be taught what kind of specific institutional changes need to be made to fix things. Obviously that's difficult, because it's somewhat nebulous and there isn't really a definite answer on what CAN fix a lot of the racial divide or even if it's realistically a completely attainable goal. But that's what the conversation needs to start turning to, and people might naturally gravitate towards that conversation.
I have to apologize because I feel like my argument isn't entirely solid, but it's just the thoughts I've been having on this lately. Any solutions to racial divides in American society are going to require cooperation between races, and I don't think the current dialogue is effective at engaging privileged groups.
I agree. I understand that people are raised in very different social situations, but it's never productive to only yell at a group for being privileged. People never respond to that. This method, trying to induce change by angrily and immaturely calling out the group with the most power, never makes much sense to me. I also think we have a lot of gender issues in America, and many women choose to call men pigs and assholes as if that's the most efficient way for them to take any responsibility or help them out. What kind of logic is that, ya know?
That's a fair point, but I think there was more intent here than just being a rant, the format is just providing a style of rhetoric for him to deliver his arguments, by framing it as something he's angry somebody else doesn't realize. I personally do think there's some constructive stuff in here, in that he's trying to convince people to be more open to his perspective and the perspectives of people like him, that they normally instantly disregard. As I said, I agree with this stuff. But the issue is that this style of rhetoric, rants, is becoming something of the norm in my experience, and I think more people need to be engaged in constructive dialogues before everything's just drowned out in anger.
I see your point. I wasn't trying to dismiss it, racial problems in our country are very real. I was, however, dismissing the method the guy above me talked about. I really feel like it distances black Americans from the very people whose opinions they're trying to sway. I'm not saying the author is without merit.
I'm very sorry to hear about your annoyance. I'll be sure to tell my black music teacher to just stop mentioning it when she's stopped by the police, who are--in spite of the lack of any justification--just making sure she owns her car, fucking monthly. I'll be sure to tell the 406 victims identified by an AP investigation as having lost 24,000 acres of land valued at tens of millions of dollars to just stop agitating for any kind of reparations now that I know a non-American is annoyed by it. I'll definitely tell the one in three American black men who are incarcerated at some point in their lifetime that it's all their fault, that it has nothing to do with institutional racism, with our history of--and the reemergence of--segregation, with the systematic disenfranchisement and theft of property weighing upon the black American population thanks to years of white antagonism. They can just shut up, because they're annoying the non-Americans.
E: The point is not that it's impossible for black Americans to succeed through "hard work and determination" and whatever other bullshit white people think goes into our success. That's an absurd strawman constructed primarily by racists. The point is that fighting to success is substantially more difficult and (N.B.) sometimes impossible for black Americans thanks to circumstances imposed by white Americans.
Look, I've seen black guys complain because their own relatives started looking down on them when they decided to live a respectable life (which the relatives considered a white thing and thus racist). There is a problem with the black community in the USA, whether you want to admit it or not, and with this attitude you'll never solve it.
You really think the Internet gives you a good picture on what it's like to be black in America? What sites have helped shape this viewpoint?
The internet gives me a window on the world, and the ability to communicate with people from (almost) anywhere. Over the years, I've been exposed to a huge amount of information coming from the USA and I've even managed to make some friends from that part of the world.
But since none of that matters to you, here's a video of another black person agreeing with me.
Are you going to say that they don't have a good picture of what it's like to be black in America?
I can watch three hundred videos about England on Youtube and I might learn some things about English life but I don't think that will give me a full picture of what life is like in England. Until I am actually living in England, I won't really know what's it like to be England. I may have an idea of what's it like in England but that will not give me a full picture. For me to say that I fully know what life is like for the average British person after watching three hundred Youtube Videos on England just wouldn't make sense if I have never actually been there.
All the videos posted are rants and they might tell you some thoughts on what some African Americans think of this matter but it doesn't give you a complete picture. Until you and me are actually blacks living in America, we will never fully understand what going on in their lives and what struggles they face. Overall, the race issue is a really complex problem that is more than just blacks blaming their problems on whites.
Do you think you have a "full picture" of anything, really? I doubt it. If having an opinion on any given subject required having a complete picture of it, conversations would be over before they even start. I certainly don't understand everything about the condition of black Americans, but neither does anyone else in this thread.
This was a bit of a cop-out in my opinion. People were implying that because Grendel is not a black american that he doesn't understand the situation enough to come to a conclusion. He linked videos to black americans who do understand the situation and who share his viewpoint. At the very least, he has proven that people with his viewpoint aren't just uneducated white people.
You're one black American. I can easily dismiss you in the same way you dismissed him by saying "Oh good! one whole black person has this view! Clearly you speak for African-Americans everywhere.
I'm not one black person, I'm white. People were dismissing Grendel because he seemed uninformed; he linked to six pieces of anecdotal evidence, whereas my (other) response linked to two pieces of statistical evidence and referenced years of well-established historical fact. That's what I was mocking.
An honest mistake. I made the assumption based on the following line. Apologies nonetheless.
| ... and whatever other bullshit white people think goes into our success.
Thanks for replying to the post anyway and clarifying things up. You seem passionate about what's being discussed here, so I might as well ask: What are the "well-established historical facts" to which you are alluding? You made an oblique reference to "years of white antagonism" in your original response to Grendel; could you give me an example of how average white Americans have antagonized black people in recent years? From my (admittedly limited) understanding of the situation there, the problem seems to be quite heavily a class issue.
In any case, I am not an American, and I don't attempt to keep on top of the narrative. I was merely commenting on the arguments outlined in this thread as I saw them.
However, there is the worrying case of some people claiming that minorities can do no wrong, and that they "can't be racist against white people". As long as people are "punching-up" so to speak, being racist is fine. There was quite some discussion about everybody's favourite Goldsmiths Diversity Officer, just as an example. Initially thought that it was just hardliners over there in the US, but the trend seems to have spread across the pond to some hardliners here. What's your opinion on the issue? Is it still racist if you're punching up?
Yeah, I meant "whatever other bullshit white people think goes into [white people's] success." My bad on the lack of clarity.
Also important to note, I'm not talking necessarily about white antagonism in recent years. I'm talking about white antagonism--from any time period--that has affected minorities in recent years. Here's some of the well-established historical fact about these effects:
- Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/
- Lynching, the practice of murdering people by extrajudicial mob action, occurred in the United States chiefly from the late 18th century through the 1960s. Lynchings took place most frequently against African-American men in the southern U.S. after the American Civil War and the emancipation of all slaves, and particularly from 1890 to the 1920s, with a peak in 1892. [...] It occurred most frequently in areas with large concentrations of blacks, dominated politically by Democrats, and with competition among local churches, as part of the enforcement of white supremacy by whites in the late 19th century following Reconstruction. The granting of U.S. Constitutional rights to freedmen after the American Civil War during the Reconstruction era (1865–1877) aroused anxieties among white Southerners, who were unwilling to concede such social status to African Americans. They blamed the freedmen for their own wartime hardship, economic loss, and loss of social and political privilege. During Reconstruction, freedmen and whites active in the pursuit of civil rights, were sometimes lynched in the South. In addition, blacks were intimidated and attacked to prevent their voting, with violence increasing around elections from 1868 into the late 1870s. White Democrats regained control of State Legislatures in 1876 and a national compromise on the presidential election resulted in the removal of federal troops and official end to Reconstruction. There continued to be violence around elections to suppress black voting, particularly with the rise of the Populist Party and some victories by Populist-Republican candidates in the 1890s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States
- The Jim Crow laws were racial segregation state and local laws enacted after the Reconstruction period in Southern United States that continued in force until 1965 mandating de jure racial segregation in all public facilities in Southern U.S. states (of the former Confederacy), starting in 1890 with a "separate but equal" status for African Americans. Conditions for African Americans were consistently inferior and underfunded compared to those provided for white Americans. This decision institutionalized a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages. De jure segregation mainly applied to the Southern United States, while Northern segregation was generally de facto — patterns of segregation in housing enforced by covenants, bank lending practices and job discrimination, including discriminatory union practices for decades.
Jim Crow laws mandated the segregation of public schools, public places and public transportation, and the segregation of restrooms, restaurants and drinking fountains for whites and blacks. The U.S. military was also segregated, as were federal workplaces, initiated in 1913 under President Woodrow Wilson, the first Southern president elected since 1856. His administration practiced overt racial discrimination in hiring, requiring candidates to submit photos.
These Jim Crow laws followed the 1800–1866 Black Codes, which had previously restricted the civil rights and civil liberties of African Americans. Segregation of public (state-sponsored) schools was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education. Generally, the remaining Jim Crow laws were overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but years of action and court challenges were needed to unravel numerous means of institutional discrimination. Such challenges continue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
- The position of most black men, relative to white men, is no better than how things stood after the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1965. That's the sobering conclusion of a new paper out from University of Chicago economists Derek Neal and Armin Rick, who find that the considerable economic progress among black men between 1940 and 1980 has halted, and in many cases reversed.
A major driver of this shift has been the rise of more punitive treatments for criminal offenders, resulting in skyrocketing incarceration rates. These changes 'have had a much larger impact on black communities than white communities because arrest rates have historically been much greater for blacks than whites,' the authors write.
I definitely think racism is racism, no matter who's the target. But I also think the US must reckon with our troubling history of enforcing white supremacy, and this will require some sort of reparation. Imagine: a woman has her purse stolen. Some years later, after the thief and woman have died, and the purse has passed on to the thief's heir, the crime is exposed. Is it unjust to take the purse from the thief's heir and return it to the woman's?
When did I ever dismiss your opinion because you're not a black American? And no, I'm not dismissing the opinions of black Americans, I'm dismissing the absurd notion that six pieces of anecdotal evidence constitute justification for an otherwise unsupported argument regarding a general trend amongst a population of 45 million.
I apologize for my sarcasm, it's just that your position stems from a place of such ridiculous misinformation (e.g.) that it's difficult to do anything but mock it.
The argument is that black people need to start taking some responsibility for their lives and stop using racism as an alibi for their misery. Do you disagree with that, and why? Attacking my person, calling me misinformed, etc, won't be considered an acceptable answer.
I disagree with how you've framed the argument. Your argument, as originally conveyed, was that black Americans have an annoying habit of blaming all their problems on whites. My original retort (through implication) was that black problems are frequently actually caused by racism, and I later edited that comment to convey an additional assertion, viz. that fighting to success is substantially harder for minorities in America. This is in contrast to the strawman claim that black people cannot succeed through hard work, which serves your argument (that black people should just work instead of complaining about racism) much better than acceptance of my argument does.
I do not disagree that black people should work to achieve success. But I do disagree that if everyone just shut up about racism, everything would be fixed. The fact is that there are visibly harmful remnants of past racism and visibly harmful manifestations of present racism that continue to affect minorities in this country and will not be solved without meaningful public dialogue; furthermore, I see the original post as a response to the unfortunate reality that many POCs see no remaining recourse for fighting oppression than to express violent emotion, whether that's manifested in rants, rioting, or terrorism.
Justice is not achieved by placing the burden of achieving equality on an oppressed minority. Justice is achieved when visible and invisible manifestations of oppression are alleviated; when the majority owns its mistakes, apologizes, and then fixes them; when the minority no longer has to work so much harder than the majority to achieve success that the gap between the average wealths of the historical majority and of the poorest minority is $105,774.
PS Crucial distinction: I never attacked your person. I said your position stemmed from misinformation, which was directly relevant to the argument. I never said you were misinformed about everything, nor that you were stupid, nor however you interpreted my (admittedly somewhat unnecessarily biting) claim.
In other words, your response to my criticism of the black community's toxic victim mentality is to simply reassert that blacks are oppressed and that white folks are the problem, and now you're even trying to imply that it's okay for a black person to express his anger through terrorism? And you wonder why there's no "meaningful public dialogue" on racism?
I'm trying to imagine what it must be like to be a white person in America today, and to be considered "privileged" even though your life kind of sucks and you have to work your ass off like everyone else, and to have to listen to someone tell you that it's all your fault if black people are poor and violent, that you have to apologise, and somehow fix their problems, which probably translates to special treatment and free stuff.
If my position stems from misinformation, yours stems from delusion. You seriously think this kind of attitude is conducive to the end of racism? You're treating whiteness like some kind of original sin that white people have to repent for, while using words like "equality" and "justice". If this is how the average American anti-racist reasons, I expect blacks to still be an oppressed minority long after Asians (who themselves used to be an oppressed minority) have overthrown whites and become the dominant group. Who are you going to blame then?
This is what that white American you are trying to picture sounds like: "My life isn't ideal! I have to, like, I don't know, work at stuff sometimes! This shit stinks. How can anyone say that the vast majority of other people in my country have it worse off than I do, considering I still have to, like, do stuff that I don't always want to do like pay my fines and taxes?"
Sure the average white American does have to, like, get by in society. No, they can't just wave a magic wand and have whatever they want without struggle work or hardship. Guess what. It's easily possible for other classes of people to still have it way worse.
So yeah if you're white and average and american and you had a bad day, maybe it's off-putting when someone else tells you that what you just went through isn't shit. It could get on one's nerves.
God it just sucks when someone points out I don't have the biggest problems, it sucks even more when someone points out that, of the possible problems a person could have, mine are probably the smallest, because then I realize what a fucking DICK I am for playing the world's tiniest violin.
I agree with you. For whatever it's worth, "galen" is "crazy" in Swedish. I can't help but wonder if he's being honest with you here.
- As much as I wish he was a troll, I think he's serious.
These days I'm fairly certain people like him are just psychopaths playing games with us. They see that we care about the truth, and then they proceed to fuck with us by spewing endless reams of sophistry for us to unpack.
- The opinions he's expressing are mainstream; we're the crazy ones.
That's true. But I bet in reality, neurotypical human beings who: 1) are very intelligent, 2) feel strongly about an issue, and 3) are genuinely, severely irrational are rare. Therefore, it's relatively safe to assume that people who seem like a match are actually psychopaths fucking with us.
See some recent responses to my messages for example. Intellectual dishonesty combined with hostility / shaming, etc.
Fine, so that one instance of black-imposed hardship has nothing to do with white antagonism. But you can't:
a.) Generalize complaints about that to all black people blaming all their problems on white people, or
b.) Imply, as you did, that there's never justification for blaming white people.
(or c. be a dick about it by reducing the results of the centuries-long struggle of an oppressed minority to fucking "quite annoying")
As an American, I can only say that this habit of non-Americans, or anyone else, generalizing an entire swath of people as "blaming their problems" on anything is... Well, stupid.
You're claims are baseless. I am American that knows, is friends with, works with and associates daily with African Americans and I have zero experience with that.
What part of the post was anti-white to you? The word "white" was only used twice, one when referring to white-only fountains, something that did happen in our history, and the second,
- White supremacy is a weight that continues to stunt the growth of the black american even today.
is, I'd agree, a pretty blanket statement, but to say it holds no truth in any area of the United States would be wrong.
In my country, I don't know, but Italians used to be an oppressed minority in the USA. Not any more, largely because they changed that perception with the sweat of their hard work. Blacks seem to have decided that it's easier to play the eternal victims. The Irish are another people that suffered discrimination at the hands of Americans, and survived to tell the tale. More than anything, the black community seems to be the victim of its own mentality, of which the OP is an example. Bill Cosby agrees with me.
An Italian who comes to America has an accent. His children don't. They can oppress the Germans.
A German who comes to America has an accent. His children don't. They can oppress the Chinese.
A Chinese who comes to America has an accent. His children won't. They can oppress the Mexicans.
A Mexican who comes to America has an accent. HIs children won't. They can oppress the blacks.
And the fucked up thing is the blacks have been here longer than any of them.
All of the above except the Chinese pass as white as soon as they lose the accent. The Chinese? Well, "asian" isn't exactly an unoppressed minority but asians have only been grossly mistreated and taken advantage of in the United States. They've never been out-and-out owned. Meanwhile, the Reconstruction south wasn't slavery but it sure as hell was Apartheid and baseball went color a mere six years before television so it's not like the US has a storied history of color-blindness. But that's okay because, you know, Bill Cosby.
There's a difference between "stop perpetuating the stereotype" and "stop getting shot by cops." No one is denying correlation; we're arguing that it's a long goddamn way from 100%.
Just so you know, Italians and Mexicans are not universally recognised as white even today (this is the first time I talk to someone who thinks of Mexicans as white). The Irish were sold as slaves in the hundreds of thousands. Chinese people could also end up being slaves, and in general were second class citizens at best.
It's fucking sad how you feel the need to downplay the misfortunes of other groups just so you can cling to the belief that blacks are the most oppressed, the biggest victims, the quintessential minority. Even some members of the black community are getting sick and tired of this attitude, and that's saying something! The very people who risk getting shot by the cops by virtue of their skin colour are saying "stop blaming everything on racism, and start fixing yourselves."
- Not any more, largely because they changed that perception with the sweat of their hard work.
Oh, I see, so if only African-Americans continued working hard and sweating in the fields the whole slavery problem would have sorted itself out. If only somebody had this kind of attitude in the mid 19th century, we could have avoided the Civil War.
Well, you asked a question, you got an answer. My point is that blacks are not the only group that started at the bottom of the social ladder, but as far as I know, they're the only ones who refuse to climb it. For many of them, crime seems to have become part of their identity. Even if white-on-black racism were to completely disappear tomorrow, blacks would continue to blame their problems on the racist crackas and their history of slavery.
This is hilariously misguided. White on white homicide occurs at the same rate, and black on black crime has decreased significantly in the last 40 years. (FBI)
additionally, your hypothetical statement about racism disappearing tomorrow is incredibly flawed. I'm not sure how you're defining racism, but it would be impossible to undo the systemically racist features of society in a single day without causing massive structural upheaval so until you elaborate on this, I can't respond
I think they lost that perception when they became acceptably white. The Irish used to be oppressed here too. And Catholics weren't seen very highly. And tell me about the laws that kept the Irish from voting. And the all Irish public schools. I missed those history lessons but I heard about that happening to black people a generation ago.
If you look white there's really no way to assess specific European ethnicity in America aside from maybe your last name. I have a Scottish last name but I'm mostly English. And when did agreeing with Bill Cosby's smug ass become a positive for anyone? It's not even a positive for Jello anymore.
- as time goes by, more and more people who are simply unwilling to look at the past because it’s easier for them to not identify any problems, even though others don’t have that luxury
So how guilty should some random 16-year-old white person feel about slavery, considering he had precisely nothing to do with it? If your great great grandfather killed a man, how guilty should you feel about it?
The sane answer is "not at all, because you had nothing to do with it".
- There are people who think that saying “I’m not into black girls” despite the fact that they’re upwards of 500 million of them on the planet and the color of their skin is the only prerequisite that they failed to meet, who think that it’s just a matter of preference
I think this is more a matter of biology than preference. Men don't exactly choose whom we're attracted to. Besides, I would venture a guess that most white men aren't into black girls, but not because they're racist scumbags.
If it's any consolation, I bet most white women would be just fine with a black man, especially without the attached social stigma.
- White supremacy is a weight that continues to stunt the growth of the black american even today
Despite the clear fact that anyone who appears to be a racist will get ostracized hard? Can our white, Western culture be both hypersensitive about racial issues and racist at the same time? That would be like being allergic to cats and having 40 of them in your apartment.
Wait so women can choose who they are attracted to but not men? That doesn't make much sense at all.
I am a Hispanic guy who grew up in a mostly white neighborhood and went to school with a white majority student body. When it came to liking girls, blondes really attracted at a young age because I mostly saw white girls for the first eighteen years of my life but as I got older and exposed to many more types of people, I found girls of all races to be attractive. So the concepts of me only liking white blonde girls changed as i was exposed to new people. I changed my mind. Nothing in my biological nature persuaded me to stay on the "right" course. People can change their minds once they get exposed to new surroundings and put down their stereotypes and realize that people of a different skin color are really no different than them in the grand scheme of things. I mean if white women can change their mind why not a white man?
Also I wouldn't say racists are completely ostracized hard at all. The reputation of a racist can be harmed if they're president of a big company and put their racism out in the open but if some guy makes casual racist remarks at his office, then there is a good chance he can get away with it. The KKK may be pretty much dying but casual racism is still around. Look at Internet Message boards, they are littered with casual racism that nobody is really calling them out on.
I'm curious about what would be considered "casual racism". I always had a pretty mixed friend group and we're always be taking the piss out of each other for being black/white/Asian. Actually, race jokes in general are pretty common with us. Should we be ashamed or outraged with ourselves? Should we take offense? Where do you draw the line between racism and having a laugh?
Casual Racism is more along the lines of using racial slurs/ideas/stereotypes in a light hearted matter in an everyday setting such as an office or at dinner and just expecting that everyone is going to be cool with it. I mean your friends might not have issues with all the race jokes but supposed someone from outside your group hears them? They might have a problem with it because some jokes hurt a lot more than you think to some people. Everyone is different in what offends them, so it's kinda tough to determine where ones draw the line in this sort of thing. You just have to be careful though because you have no idea how someone's going to something you might see as light hearted.
Interesting view, and I half-agree with you. In an unfamiliar/professional setting it's definitely important to remain sensitive to these things, because, as you said, you don't know what people might take offense at.
- I mean your friends might not have issues with all the race jokes but supposed someone from outside your group hears them? They might have a problem with it because some jokes hurt a lot more than you think to some people.
If someone from outside my friend group overhears us and finds it offensive... Then they find it offensive. They can have a problem with it all they like. However, I'd be hesitant to label it as 'casual racism'; doing so is subtly calling the speaker a racist. A person isn't a racist unless they believe that one race is inferior to the other. Unless the speaker genuinely believes that and their words reflect that belief, it shouldn't be labeled as 'racism'. Stripping away the intention and focusing on the words will always lead to misinterpretation.
For example, by focusing solely on the words, something as innocuous as "I love steak" can be interpreted as promoting animal cruelty. However, the speaker could really just be enjoying his dinner.
It's impossible to make sure that nobody is offended by what I say, so I shouldn't be branded a racist just because someone took offense. If anyone is offended at anything, they should think "Why am I offended?" and "What was that person's intention?" We shouldn't be so quick to jump the gun and call them racists.
- Wait so women can choose who they are attracted to but not men? That doesn't make much sense at all.
Well it's a good thing I never said that, then?
- as I got older and exposed to many more types of people, I found girls of all races to be attractive
Good for you. So what?
- if some guy makes casual racist remarks at his office, then there is a good chance he can get away with it
There's also a good chance he'll lose his job for it.
- Look at Internet Message boards, they are littered with casual racism that nobody is really calling them out on.
And yet here we are, on an Internet Message Board, bemoaning racism (or the bemoaning of non-existent racism).
- So how guilty should some random 16-year-old white person feel about slavery, considering he had precisely nothing to do with it?
It's not meaningful to talk about personal responsibility or guilt when it comes to dealing with issues of systemic racism. The idea is that we ought to sympathize with the struggle of oppressed groups and turn that into a push to reform the system; not out of white guilt, but out of moral conviction.
- Can our white, Western culture be both hypersensitive about racial issues and racist at the same time?
Yes. Interpersonal racism is treated as an unforgivable sin and a taboo, while systemic racism lies basically untouched. "SJWs" on the internet love to shame individual people, but they never manage to do more than talk about fixing systemic racism because nobody has the courage or sheer ability to organize and engage in direct political action IRL anymore. It's all displaced rage arising from feelings of political impotence.
- It's not meaningful to talk about personal responsibility or guilt when it comes to dealing with issues of systemic racism.
Sure it is. You're asking a vast group of individuals to feel guilty about bad things some of their ancestors did a long time ago. That still doesn't make any sense whatsoever, because these individuals had nothing to do with it.
- The idea is that we ought to sympathize with the struggle of oppressed groups and turn that into a push to reform the system; not out of white guilt, but out of moral conviction.
We do sympathize the shit out of them. That's exactly why White Guilt is even a thing. Without the hypersensitive sympathizing, people would see the inanity of feeling guilty for something someone else did.
- Yes. Interpersonal racism is treated as an unforgivable sin and a taboo, while systemic racism lies basically untouched.
You can't detach "the system" from the individuals. There is no systemic racism without individual racism, and since individual racism is not tolerated at all, there is no systemic racism either.
Besides, you've got it backwards:
White people will lose their jobs over racist tweets for example, but a black person can laugh about killing white people on national TV and people just mindlessly "Woooo" at him.
You have no case. Stop spreading misguided ideas.
Really, this doesn't even merit a response. You're just saying "nuh-uh" without backing anything up. But whatever:
- You're asking a vast group of individuals to feel guilty about bad things some of their ancestors did a long time ago.
No I'm not. It's likely you don't understand what guilt means, and how it is distinct from sympathy.
- We do sympathize the shit out of them. That's exactly why White Guilt is even a thing.
Suspicions confirmed.
Guilt implies that you did something wrong, and deserve to be punished. The vast majority of white people today never did anything wrong, so they shouldn't be supporting the cause of racial justice out of guilt. They should be supporting the cause out of universal moral duty, because the current configuration of our society is unfair and immoral.
- You can't detach "the system" from the individuals. There is no systemic racism without individual racism, and since individual racism is not tolerated at all, there is no systemic racism either.
You're saying, then, that it's not possible for everyone within a system to act with particular intentions, and yet yield a result that they did not intend or desire at all due to the way the incentive structure is configured? I hope you have proof of this claim, because the field of game theory would be revolutionized.
- Really, this doesn't even merit a response. You're just saying "nuh-uh" without backing anything up. But whatever
You're just being dishonest. Without backing anything up? Somehow you conveniently ignored Jamie Foxx.
- I think this is more a matter of biology than preference. Men don't exactly choose whom we're attracted to. Besides, I would venture a guess that most white men aren't into black girls, but not because they're racist scumbags.
Seek more info here.
I'm very interested in your guess.
- Despite the clear fact that anyone who appears to be a racist will get ostracized hard?
It's true. I'm ostracizing you pretty hard right now mentally. Could you explain to me more how white men find black women unattractive, but white women find black men attractive?
- Seek more info here.
Huh? What do you mean? There's no link, and you seem to have had some sort of formatting/quoting accident.
Or maybe you're suggesting that seeing someone contradict my position should make me abandon it?
- It's true. I'm ostracizing you pretty hard right now mentally. Could you explain to me more how white men find black women unattractive, but white women find black men attractive?
I'm afraid I can't.
How about this:
- How many percent of all porn has black women in it?
- How many percent has white women in it?
- How many percent has Asian women in it?So basically:
- Could you explain to me more how white men find black women unattractive
.. Ask your penis. If you have honest, white male friends, ask them too.
Female Pornstars by race:
- - How many percent of all porn has black women in it?
14%
- - How many percent has white women in it?
70.5%
- - How many percent has Asian women in it?
5.2%
All numbers above are sourced here.
Which, oddly enough, are pretty close to the demographic breakdown of women in the United States as of 2010.
White Women: 63.8%
African-American Women: 12.7%
Asian-American Women: 4.9%
Alright, let's try this another way.
Browse through The PirateBay's porn torrents and see how many percent of the videos you come across have black women in them. That percentage is way less than 14% and indicative of what men actually want to see.
I don't think his statement is true, I'd need to see some numbers on interracial relationships before I believed it, but if I were to hazard a cause for the possible scenario I would say media portrayal. You very rarely see white men and black women together in movies and television.
I really wish people would stop treating police brutality as a race problem. It isn't, and treating it as such gives dog-whistle blowers the ability to dismiss it.
Cops are borderline untouchable in most of this country, and they are able to wantonly abuse their power as a result. Just as one example, John Pike, the pig who assaulted protestors at UC Davis with pepper spray for no reason (for which the protesters got won a million-dollar settlement!) received $38,000 in worker's compensation - for "depression and anxiety" stemming from his own abuse of police weaponry against innocent citizens.
If police actually had proper oversight you could have a Klansman on the force in a city full of black people and the minute he abused his power in any form he'd be kicked off the force and thrown in jail with the same sentence a citizen would receive, an additional 3-5 years for abuse of police power, and a lifetime ban from ever being on a police force. Instead, what we have is a system where cops get a paid vacation until the media attention turns away and then it's back to normal.
Police brutality isn't just a race problem, it's a poverty problem, it's a policing problem, and a race problem. Denying that race has anything to do with police killings is equally incorrect as saying that race is the only problem.
Absolutely, that's something that people never seem to talk about. It's either A or B, and that's such a "black or white" (excuse the phrase) way of looking at it. The problem is, looking over a lot of the recent police shootings that have received major media coverage, whether it was racially-driven or not, the victims happened to be black.
I second this. Both extremes (always about race, never about race) are incorrect and harmful to the well being of all people in our country. What upsets me about these police brutality incidents are 1) that they ever happen at all and 2) so many people jump on the cases as a reason to generalize police offers as either never, or always, being racist in their decisions.
On the subject of police brutality, it's easy to think more people are racist than in reality because clean-cut police brutality doesn't make the front page. People only argue about cases that have a degree of debatability, so those are the ones that become big, contentious stories and it begins to look like all instances of police abuse are disputed.
The vast majority of people don't tolerate racism, but news about obviously rule-breaking cops are one-day stories. If a riot broke out after every undebatable unlawful police shooting, we'd have a very different (and not less accurate) picture in our heads of the frequency with which these things happen.
I think it is great we are trying to clean up racism and other issues involving race. However, lets not attach race to issues simply because the issue involves people of different races. Instead consider finding evidence before making statements condeming someone as racist. If we don't, I fear the issue will fade because the public won't listen if we cry wolf to many times.
I also think we are acting too defensive when someone challenges the issue as being about race. I feel like there is a potential danger in the way individuals are thinking about the racial issues. In the same way someone behaves racist towards one race, there exist equal potential to do the inverse.
Lastly lets not forget that the root of the problem is being different than those in postions of power. LBGT, black, asian, foreignor, gothic, or any other difference from the people in positions of power puts you at risk of experiencing prejudice and hatred from them.