Discussion: Racism - Part 1

[MessiahDecoy123]

Fair point. Discrimination is bad, but it's not the end of the world. I get that it's 2016 and being offended is worse than having a terminal illness or a gaping flesh wound.

Also, you've moved the goal posts. I mentioned that Asians by and large have superior material circumstances to everyone else in America and your rebuttal was "But some people don't want them living in their neighborhoods!" - not exactly the systematic driving out lots of liberals want people thinking is happening. I doubt it bothers most Asians earning $100,000 per household that someone in their neighborhood would prefer more white families in that neighborhood. Because for every 1 racist household chances are there are 5 normal households that don't give a crap about the ethnicity of their neighbors.

I don't think I moved the goal post. I doubt housing is the only time Asians face discrimination from whites.

Asians have more positive stereotypes and higher instances of success than blacks or Latinos but that doesn't mean they're at the top of the privilege hierarchy.

If Asians were the majority and they politically opposed other minorities I'm fairly certain you would hear "check your Asian privilege" all the time.

Of course it's worth paying attention to, but why keep harping on about white privilege? Before I brought this up your MO in most topics, like a lot of trendy liberals was to resort to the "white privilege" card immediately. Regressive liberals believe hegemony and anyone carrying hegemonic identity categories are a plague, and once they've driven all the cishet white Christian males into the sea the USA will turn into the marxist utopia all non-cishet non-white, non-Christian, non-males deserve for their centuries of uniform oppression.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I rarely use the term "white privilege" if ever. I'm only using it now because you brought it up.

In regard to the bold, you're stating the obvious again, dominant groups try and protect their domination - no news there. This is precisely why rednecks get up in arms over not being a majority population in the USA, because what you call white privilege is just hegemony. Of course people will fight to protect the benefits they have, this is human nature we're talking about. You're trying to rewrite human behavior here, it's admirable but it's futile. It's also the whole point of a nation state, as unpopular a sentiment as people might find it. The whole reasons there are nations, and borders, and specific rules for specific areas is because they're established to suit a specific population. Globalization is railing against that, hence why you've got so many issues in culturally diverse countries.

It's also human nature to welcome diversity. I think the word regressive should apply to people who cling to hegemony. Especially when based on arbitrary skin color.

Surely you jest? Everyone is judged according to racial stereotypes. "Crazy white kid shooter", "Laundromat owning Asian" - and you saying "Most blacks don't live in poverty" flies in the face of what you generally seem to post that would suggest black Americans are under constant siege within their own borders and are tantamount to being driven out by nefarious forces.

You're making it sound like the default way everyone looks at black Americans is according to only negative stereotypes - what proof have you got for this?

First, I didn't say "everyone".

Second, lots of people condescendingly talk to the black comminity like they're having an intervention of sorts with a crack head prostitute.

I hear it all the time. "Blacks need to look in the mirror and fix themselves".

In fact Trump basically recently told blacks in general "you have no jobs, you're poor, etc"

That's a major difference between how people view unsuccessful whites and unsuccessful blacks. Unsuccessful whites are "white trash". Unsuccessful blacks become representatives of their entire race. That perception of each race's bottom 30% makes a big difference in how people view a race as a whole.

 

[2kt09]

Is it a racial conspiracy? No, I don't think all whites go to meetings to agree to discriminate however far right groups have their share of think tanks that are clearly influencing politics and policy on a global scale.

There are powerful people actively planning to reduce diversity, cut inner city social programs, roll back voting rights for blacks, resist police reforms, resist changes to the justice system. I wouldn't call it a conspiracy because it's pretty blatant and obvious.

*Waits to be called a broken record again despite bringing up new points*

Where's the Democrat/leftist accountability in those inner cities? I brought this up in the Democratic Party thread and not this thread because I'm well aware you have scenarios of minorities "oppressing" minorities.

I don't think black people are doing as bad as many people suggest. What are the many people suggesting?

Most blacks don't live in poverty, most are not criminals, most are not on welfare, most are not drop outs. Replace blacks with any other race and this is still an accurate assessment.

So the question becomes why judge all some blacks based on the least successful 30%? The assumption is he/she is racist when it's "all". Changed it to "some" because systematically and socially speaking that's the accepted diction as it inherently varies from place-place/people-people.

We don't do that for whites or Asians. Exactly how inclusive is this we?

You're a broken record on this false dichotomy.

Here's one.
A majority of blacks continue to grow up in single-parent homes at a percentage higher than any other and that has its proven economic risks. If most blacks currently "don't live in poverty, are not criminals, are not on welfare, are not drop outs" then they likely "started from the bottom" in their respective circumstances or that standard of living was/is low enough to get by.

 

[DeadPresident]

I don't think I moved the goal post. I doubt housing is the only time Asians face discrimination from whites.

Asians have more positive stereotypes and higher instances of success than blacks or Latinos but that doesn't mean they're at the top of the privilege hierarchy.

If Asians were the majority and they politically opposed other minorities I'm fairly certain you would hear "check your Asian privilege" all the time.

While everything you say is valid I find it a little weird you phrase it as "…discrimination from whites" - I'm pretty sure discrimination comes from everyone towards everyone in the US. If you mean institutionally or from positions of power there would probably be merit to it being from whites mostly from a numerical sense, I suppose.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I rarely use the term "white privilege" if ever. I'm only using it now because you brought it up.

Not the term, the broad concept, the implication that black America is kept down solely by white America - deliberately. It erases too much nuance.

It's also human nature to welcome diversity. I think the word regressive should apply to people who cling to hegemony. Especially when based on arbitrary skin color.

That's a nice fairytale, but it just isn't true. Diversity is tolerated when material circumstance isn't affected, it's the first thing to go as soon as resources aren't freely available. Human beings are animals, we separate ourselves by color and creed and similarity as a matter of biological instinct, it takes good socialization and education to counteract that.

First, I didn't say "everyone".

Second, lots of people condescendingly talk to the black comminity like they're having an intervention of sorts with a crack head prostitute.

I hear it all the time. "Blacks need to look in the mirror and fix themselves".

In fact Trump basically recently told blacks in general "you have no jobs, you're poor, etc"

That's a major difference between how people view unsuccessful whites and unsuccessful blacks. Unsuccessful whites are "white trash". Unsuccessful blacks become representatives of their entire race. That perception of each race's bottom 30% makes a big difference in how people view a race as a whole.

I don't know exactly how the conversation goes down in the States, so I'll take your word for it. We've hit a point in human history where everyone needs to dispassionately critique their own culture and the things about their culture that they take for granted. Diversity doesn't just work, it needs concerted effort.

I'm still skeptical that an entire nation views black Americans that way, but I'll take it as a Schrodinger's cat scenario, I have no proof so both options are on the table for me. To be fair I've seen social media activity from a few black Americans that have called their own communities to action about whatever maladaptive parts of their culture need to be discussed and critiqued, so I'm not sure it would be fair to say that these comments are only coming from non-black individuals in the USA.

Everyone needs to be having that conversation with themselves and others.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Where's the Democrat/leftist accountability in those inner cities? I brought this up in the Democratic Party thread and not this thread because I'm well aware you have scenarios of minorities "oppressing" minorities.

How do you turn a poor city or trailer park into a middle class utopia? Most of the residents live there because they have little resources and education. People who have the traits needed to improve the area simply move away.

The only proven solution is gentrification and that simply moves the problem somewhere else.

You're a broken record on this false dichotomy.

What false dichotomy?

BTW - It's much easier to respond to you if you don't embed your replies inside my quotes.

Here's one.
A majority of blacks continue to grow up in single-parent homes at a percentage higher than any other and that has its proven economic risks. If most blacks currently "don't live in poverty, are not criminals, are not on welfare, are not drop outs" then they likely "started from the bottom" in their respective circumstances or that standard of living was/is low enough to get by.

I'm not really concerned with how many blacks have a non-traditional family.

I'm more concerned with the percentage who are violent or live in poverty.

And the vast majority blacks are non-violent and don't live in poverty.

Therefore, the most problematic blacks shouldn't define the rest when discussing blacks as a whole.

 

[RockSP]

If it's true that black culture in the US sees going to school and getting good grades and going on to college as the "white" thing to do, then that may account for some of the issues that blacks are currently having.

There are definitely black people who feel that way but the idea that "black America" in general feels that way is beyond silly. There wouldn't be lots of HBCUs (historically black colleges & universities) in the country if that was the case. And the reason most HBCUs exist in the first place is because black people were denied admission into "white" universities.

 

[2kt09]

How do you turn a poor city or trailer park into a middle class utopia?

Suburbia?
You make sure the people have access to a stable private sector and get able-bodied individuals off of welfare as soon as possible since we're talking about a "poor city or trailer park".

Most of the residents live there because they have little resources and education.

For example?
When I see "inner-city", emphasis on city, I'm thinking they still have access to public facilities & plenty of neighbors to aid them in education just as there are likely enough stores to provide the essentials. When I see "trailer park", I'm thinking people who have to take long drives or long walks to remotely gain access to those.
In either case (assuming it's a trailer park community and not just non-farmers in the middle of nowhere), it's within reason to assume most of these are closely knit societies that rely on each other more than they do govt aid.

People who have the traits needed to improve the area simply move away.

Well that sounds counter-productive.
As you said, the people have low resources and education, so I'm assuming they work their hardest to eventually move out - that's upward mobility.
That should be the priority of low income areas if...

The only proven solution is gentrification and that simply moves the problem somewhere else.

The problem of low cost living for low income people?

I'm not really concerned with how many blacks have a non-traditional family.

You got the other side of the aisle calling that a broken home.
You can do the math yourself for a single parent who isn't successful enough to provide for him/herself and him/her own.

I'm more concerned with the percentage who are violent or live in poverty.

Single parent (or worse) household is a strong contributor.

And the vast majority of blacks are non-violent and don't live in poverty.

The majority of single parents definitely have more pressure put on to them to make sure that remains the case alongside multi-parent/guardian families who have often upheld that case.

Therefore, the most problematic blacks shouldn't define the rest when discussing blacks as a whole.

Goes without saying.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Single parent (or worse) household is a strong contributor.

.

I have to address this.

Fatherless homes does not contribute to poverty based on historical data.

22% of black children were fatherless in the 1960's and 41% of all blacks lived in poverty.

Today, 56% of black children are fatherless yet the percentage of blacks who live in poverty dropped to 26%.


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ears-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/

 

[Thundercrack85]

I do wonder what has caused that epidemic of fatherlessness. I've read theories that it's a legacy of slavery, but I'm not convinced.

 

[2kt09]

I have to address this.

Fatherless homes does not contribute to poverty based on historical data.

22% of black children were fatherless in the 1960's and 41% of all blacks lived in poverty.

Today, 56% of black children are fatherless yet the percentage of blacks who live in poverty dropped to 26%.


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...ears-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/

That's a 5 decade gap with a 100+ million pop. difference and many other contributing factors.
So, I can assume the current poverty % is exponentially higher for single-parent families because there are more single-parent families.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

That's a 6 decade gap with a 100+ million pop. difference and many other contributing factors.
So, I can assume the current poverty % is exponentially higher for single-parent families because there are more single-parent families.

I'm not a statician but I'm pretty sure percentages give a clear picture at whether poverty rates improved or got worse.

 

[2kt09]

I'm not a statistician but I'm pretty sure percentages give a clear picture at whether poverty rates improved or got worse.

That wasn't in contention.

Single parent (or worse) household is a strong contributor. Fatherless homes do not contribute to poverty based on historical data.

While 23% of all Black families live below the poverty level only 8% of Black married couple families live in poverty which is considerably lower than the 37% of Black families headed by single women who live below the poverty line. The highest poverty rates (46%) are for Black families with children which are headed by single Black women. This is significant considering more than half (55%) of all Black families with children are headed by single women.

 

[InCali]

I'm not a statician but I'm pretty sure percentages give a clear picture at whether poverty rates improved or got worse.

That wasn't in contention.

From whence comes the chart (Site please)? I actually "am" a statistician and, while I can't comment on the specifics of the chart you posted, I will say that, at a glance, it looks like African Americans did relatively well with regard to poverty under the Johnson/Nixon administrations (though I think it's pretty well documented that the Great Society program instituted by Lyndon Johnson was quite effective in this regard) and also under the Clinton administration.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors involved, but, from a simplistic perspective, it sounds like you're a fan of southern democrats. t:

BTW, ALL families headed by single parents are more likely to be poverty stricken (as was mine) than those with 2 or 3 or 4 (or whatever) working parents (I may be biased in this regard, but if you have more than 1 working parent, it seems that you'd be less likely to be below the poverty line).

 

[Sithborg]

I do wonder what has caused that epidemic of fatherlessness. I've read theories that it's a legacy of slavery, but I'm not convinced.

I would say the high rate of incarceration is a significant factor.

 

[Schlosser85]

The lingering economic inequality leads to higher crime, leads to higher incarceration rates, leads to absentee imprisoned fathers?

 

[Thundercrack85]

The lingering economic inequality leads to higher crime, leads to higher incarceration rates, leads to absentee imprisoned fathers?

But there are plenty of minority groups with that problem, and the rates aren't similar.

 

[InCali]

But there are plenty of minority groups with that problem, and the rates aren't similar.

The "problem" IMO ain't quite the same. Race isn't the only issue. Social perceptions and historical issues are also (maybe more) important. When I attended the University of California, I listened to a "smart" guy named William Shockley who had some attitudes that could kindly be described as frelled up beyond belief, but there were people out there who believed the BS he was throwing out simply because of their preconceived notions. Those notions creep into the psyche of our society and when it creeps into the minds of public servants, well....we've seen what can result.

 

[2kt09]

From whence comes the chart (Site please)?

... exponentially higher for single-parent families because there are more single-parent families.
http://blackdemographics.com/households/poverty/

I actually "am" a statistician and, while I can't comment on the specifics of the chart you posted, I will say that, at a glance, it looks like African Americans did relatively well with regard to poverty under the Johnson/Nixon administrations (though I think it's pretty well documented that the Great Society program instituted by Lyndon Johnson was quite effective in this regard) and also under the Clinton administration.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors involved, but, from a simplistic perspective, it sounds like you're a fan of southern democrats. t:

It's clear LBJ and Bill made a lasting impact.

BTW, ALL families headed by single parents are more likely to be poverty stricken (as was mine) than those with 2 or 3 or 4 (or whatever) working parents (I may be biased in this regard, but if you have more than 1 working parent, it seems that you'd be less likely to be below the poverty line).

Of course, without question.
For the sake of this discussion i stuck with the racial variable.

 

[SV Fan]

But there are plenty of minority groups with that problem, and the rates aren't similar.

For the most part whatever "social class" your parents are in chances are the children will be in and maybe move up or down 1 social class. When you start at the bottom harder to move up and it's just a repeating cycle.

I will gladly admit I am where I am in my life largely because were my parents were before me(my parents were as middle class as middle class people could be). Basically it's much easier to be decently off when you go to university get a decent job due to a stupid piece of paper and are debt free.

 

[SV Fan]

If there was any picture that says why poor people should vote another Clinton this is it. lol

 

[2kt09]

If there was any picture that says why poor people should vote another Clinton this is it. lol

The trade-off is an unflattering incarceration picture. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[InCali]

It's clear LBJ and Bill made a lasting impact.


Of course, without question.
For the sake of this discussion i stuck with the racial variable.

TBH, the rise of the internet helped the economy and would have done so whether or not a repub or dem was in the White House during the Clinton administration. The question, that we'll never be able to answer, is whether the the "have nots" would have fared better under Bush Sr. (now a middle of the road to left leaning repub) or William Jefferson (a middle of the road.....).

My mother worked for a very wealthy man from Texas who knew the Johnson family and, believe me, they were NOT altruists. What Lyndon accomplished during his administration; the bad (Vietnam) and the good (Great Society) makes him something of an enigma (in my mind).

I don't mind having these sorts of discussions, but I find it very....I don't know...uncomfortable when I read things from people who seem to be pointing to a particular race somehow being intrinsically more apt to be "A", "B", or "C".

The reality is, in my mind, that expectations and opinions are really the deciding factors. Oh, and don't forget about when those expectations and opinions are held by those holding the bigger bank accounts.

 

[InCali]

The trade-off is an unflattering incarceration picture. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

It's silly to give all credit (or blame) to the man or woman sitting in the Oval Office. For example, the economy got a big push in the mid-nineties and the Clinton (rightfully) got some credit for that. Still, the economy would have most likely done well under a Bush administration also. Whether it would have done better under Bush will never be known. If you look at the Black victimization rate during the Clinton administration, you will see a massive decrease.

The bottom line is that there is no "trade off" if you are talking about a decrease in poverty rates being somehow connected to an increase in incarceration rates among a particular group. I think that's a ridiculous proposition. If you really believe this, please let us know about your hypothesis. In short, the Clintons are, by and large, admired and/or loved in the African American community.

 

[2kt09]

It's silly to give all credit (or blame) to the man or woman sitting in the Oval Office. For example, the economy got a big push in the mid-nineties and the Clinton (rightfully) got some credit for that. Still, the economy would have most likely done well under a Bush administration also. Whether it would have done better under Bush will never be known. If you look at the Black victimization rate during the Clinton administration, you will see a massive decrease.

The bottom line is that there is no "trade off" if you are talking about a decrease in poverty rates being somehow connected to an increase in incarceration rates among a particular group. I think that's a ridiculous proposition. If you really believe this, please let us know about your hypothesis. In short, the Clintons are, by and large, admired and/or loved in the African American community.

"Mass incarceration" doesn't look good after LBJ's war on poverty.
Bill Clinton apologized for the crime bill, but the fact is what it is as the rate slightly changes between presidencies atop this inescapable peak.
I await the president that says the govt is profiteering off the drug war and something serious gets done about it (non-violent offenders especially), which would be a start.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

"Mass incarceration" doesn't look good after LBJ's war on poverty.
Bill Clinton apologized for the crime bill, but the fact is what it is as the rate slightly changes between presidencies atop this inescapable peak.
I await the president that says the govt is profiteering off the drug war and something serious gets done about it (non-violent offenders especially), which would be a start.

Nixon officially started the War on Drugs which caused incarceration to skyrocket.

It had nothing to do with the War on Poverty.

 

[2kt09]

Nixon officially started the War on Drugs which caused incarceration to skyrocket.

It had nothing to do with the War on Poverty.

Yeah, I know.
My "trade-off" comment was in reference to why a Clinton should be in office.