|
EDIT: Unless by group you meant doctors or D&D players. Given the context of this discussion, I assume by group as in 'white people' or 'black people.
By groups I was thinking of any set of people exhibiting similar behaviors, thus making them a group. If I see a bunch of youths with their pants around their knees and their boxers exposed, I don't stop and question the color of their skin before mentally labeling them as 'silly punks.' Likewise if I see a group of people with white coats and stethescopes I don't question their gender or skin color before labelling them as a group of 'doctors.'
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
In fact, judging by the past roughly page and a half, this thread may be wearing out as a place for useful discussion. There seemsto be a lot of finger pointing, name calling, and political oneupmanship. I think I will drop out now, while there is still hope of not getting sucked into the mud.
That's not fair David. There hasn't been any finger-pointing and name-calling in the last half of a page.
|
In fact, judging by the past roughly page and a half, this thread may be wearing out as a place for useful discussion. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing, name calling, and political oneupmanship. I think I will drop out now, while there is still hope of not getting sucked into the mud.That's not fair David. There hasn't been any finger-pointing and name-calling in the last half of a page.
Yeah, but I was talking about before that. Damn, I got sucked in. :)
Ironically, if you set up programs to specifically assist one "race" and not any others, you would also be exhibiting racist behavior based upon your prejudices.Even if you believed that there is no scientific basis to the notion of race but that racism is a social reality and what you were trying to do was assist those who had been discriminated against?
If so, aren't any attempts to protect those who have suffered from racism are racist.
I think we must be consistent here, and be careful that we not let well-intended emotions creep in. If I established a scholarship fund that grants tuition money to White people and no others, you would rightly accuse me of racism.
Thus, if I establish a scholarship fund that grants tuition money to Black people and no others, I must also be accused of racism.The presence of past injustices does NOT give right to present injustices. As it has been so aptly put, two wrongs don't make a right.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
As to the second question, thats another whole can of worms. Is it right to discriminate against one group in retaliation for discrimination done in the past against another group? My personal views are that while those that initiate such programs might do so with pure motives it leads to further discrimination and 'racism' as you are perpetuating the division of the culture into unnecessary groups.
I struggle with that one too and think that any kind of segregation should be carefully justified.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Ironically, if you set up programs to specifically assist one "race" and not any others, you would also be exhibiting racist behavior based upon your prejudices.Even if you believed that there is no scientific basis to the notion of race but that racism is a social reality and what you were trying to do was assist those who had been discriminated against?
If so, aren't any attempts to protect those who have suffered from racism are racist.
I think we must be consistent here, and be careful that we not let well-intended emotions creep in. If I established a scholarship fund that grants tuition money to White people and no others, you would rightly accuse me of racism.
Thus, if I establish a scholarship fund that grants tuition money to Black people and no others, I must also be accused of racism.The presence of past injustices does NOT give right to present injustices. As it has been so aptly put, two wrongs don't make a right.
Is the present just? If not, then the scholarship fund is not a present injustice. It is an attempt to help justice to grow.
I just googled "african american men enrolment american universities" and found the words collocated with words like "plummet," "decline," and "plight". (Not a scientific study so all that I will suggest is that some people might question whether injustice is in the past.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Yeah, but I was talking about before that. Damn, I got sucked in. :)In fact, judging by the past roughly page and a half, this thread may be wearing out as a place for useful discussion. There seems to be a lot of finger pointing, name calling, and political oneupmanship. I think I will drop out now, while there is still hope of not getting sucked into the mud.That's not fair David. There hasn't been any finger-pointing and name-calling in the last half of a page.
Yes. There was. And it was ugly. I'll keep my fingers on the keyboard and won't point them at anybody.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Come play in the mud Dave... It's fun!
I've never been big on groups, well except for one.
"I have nothing against humans. Some of my best friends are human. But as a race, they stink, and you know it. I say, 'kill them all'." -Quinn the alien, War of the Worlds.
|
|
I struggle with that one too and think that any kind of segregation should be carefully justified.As to the second question, thats another whole can of worms. Is it right to discriminate against one group in retaliation for discrimination done in the past against another group? My personal views are that while those that initiate such programs might do so with pure motives it leads to further discrimination and 'racism' as you are perpetuating the division of the culture into unnecessary groups.
The only valid reason I can think of for segregation is ability. Anything else is, I think, going to create undesireable complications for those involved at some point in the future even when those doing the segregating think they are acting for the best.
I take that back. Segregating for reasons of gender is sometimes desireable for reasons of modesty. I'm all in favor of men's and women's restrooms. :)
|
|
Is the present just? If not, then the scholarship fund is not a present injustice. It is an attempt to help justice to grow.
I just googled "african american men enrolment american universities" and found the words collocated with words like "plummet," "decline," and "plight". (Not a scientific study so all that I will suggest is that some people might question whether injustice is in the past.)
Doesn't that beg the question as to whether the reasons for the decline are opportunistic or cultural? I would argue that the reason for the decline has more to do with culture and less to do with opportunity. I know that there are huge opportunities for those willing to play into the whole race thing. I purposelly turned down opportunities to take advantage of these because I was philosophically opposed to them but I have a brother who used some of it to help put himself through MIT IIRC what my mother said. (Not for African Americans but for those of Hispanic origin).
I went out with two pretty black girls back in the day and the only people who shot funny looks were black men. But I just looked at 'em and they looked away. Then again, that was New York. Perhaps if I'd lived in Louisiana I would have had to put up my dukes (and by that I mean my two bodyguards, crazily both named Duke).
So there's stigma for mixed race marriages. There's some stigma having my hair 40 inches long too, but the judge who tries to cut it is going to have a lube-drenched dump truck driven at high speed up his rear. Really. I know where to get a dump truck and I'm good at driving angry.
We're big boys and girls, we don't need judges telling us to wear clothes that are less flirty in rape trials or warning us away from mixed marriages because some people may not like it. The people who don't like it are usually racist on some level, and racists need to be bothered about things. It's what makes them feel alive and relevant. Take away their sense of outrage at what they perceive to be injustice and they're nothing but bad breath and a day job.
Ironically, if you set up programs to specifically assist one "race" and not any others, you would also be exhibiting racist behavior based upon your prejudices.Even if you believed that there is no scientific basis to the notion of race but that racism is a social reality and what you were trying to do was assist those who had been discriminated against?
If so, aren't any attempts to protect those who have suffered from racism are racist.
I think we must be consistent here, and be careful that we not let well-intended emotions creep in. If I established a scholarship fund that grants tuition money to White people and no others, you would rightly accuse me of racism.
Thus, if I establish a scholarship fund that grants tuition money to Black people and no others, I must also be accused of racism.The presence of past injustices does NOT give right to present injustices. As it has been so aptly put, two wrongs don't make a right.
Is the present just? If not, then the scholarship fund is not a present injustice. It is an attempt to help justice to grow.
I just googled "african american men enrolment american universities" and found the words collocated with words like "plummet," "decline," and "plight". (Not a scientific study so all that I will suggest is that some people might question whether injustice is in the past.)
Men in general having been going to college less than women and the ratios continue to fall. Pretty soon it is going to be 2-1 ratio of women to men (not a bad thing for the guys going to college, but tough on women to find a man that is on par with her educational and financially).
By the way, the rest of your statement is true, and I concur that this judge acted with racist motive.
Racist or racial? I think to really claim it is racist, you'd have to show that one race is given special treatment (either favorable or unfavorable). If this guy refuses to marry any couple that are not the same "racial" group, then it might not actually be "racist". Inappropriate, narrow-minded, stupid, assine, ...
I went out with two pretty black girls back in the day
Which makes you either a racist or a sexist, or something, because I have it on good authority* that they were ugly girls, and you just perceived them as being pretty because of your own -isms.
* My own unfounded opinion that has no basis in observation or reality, but that I'll assert as fact anyway
|
|
So there's stigma for mixed race marriages. There's some stigma having my hair 40 inches long too, but the judge who tries to cut it is going to have a lube-drenched dump truck driven at high speed up his rear. Really. I know where to get a dump truck and I'm good at driving angry.We're big boys and girls, we don't need judges telling us to wear clothes that are less flirty in rape trials or warning us away from mixed marriages because some people may not like it. The people who don't like it are usually racist on some level, and racists need to be bothered about things. It's what makes them feel alive and relevant. Take away their sense of outrage at what they perceive to be injustice and they're nothing but bad breath and a day job.
+1
Why not.
Racist undertones of the 'socialist' epithet
This was perhaps to be expected. Americans are famously reluctant to talk about race and racism, and the self-congratulatory remarks by Professor Gates, Sergeant James Crowley, and President Obama after the touted "beer summit" only appeared to reinforce this aversion.
Yet, as seen at various town hall meetings and the Tea Party rally in Washington Sept. 12, a deeper sign of racial tension has emerged with the reappearance of a different inflammatory expression: socialism.
In the context of American politics, socialism has seldom been about the economy or state power alone, despite its political-economic roots. Instead, it has been a slur, synonymous with the charge of communism, but with meaning extending beyond this term as well.
Black leaders in particular have faced this accusation. In 1964, amid the momentous occasion of congressional approval for the Civil Rights Act, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina declared its passage the result of "Negro agitators, spurred on by Communist enticements to promote racial strife."
Martin Luther King Jr. was not an exception to this allegation, but a direct target. Indeed, he faced immediate pressure to distance himself from close aide, intellectual mentor, and key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, Bayard Rustin, who once had ties with the Communist Party.
Take another black leader, another society fraught by racial division. In 1956, Nelson Mandela and 155 other antiapartheid activists were arrested by the South African government under the infamous Suppression of Communism Act of 1950, a law that was used gratuitously to incarcerate anyone who was critical of the government.
The treason trial that followed resulted in a 1961 acquittal for all those involved, the government unable to prove any "socialist" intentions. But the political equation of black activists as "communists" would continue up through the 1980s.
The Reagan administration egregiously soft-pedaled the issue of apartheid on the basis of the South African government's purported anticommunist stance. Indeed, the South African government itself viewed its policies not as racist, but as anticommunist. Only popular pressure through a global antiapartheid movement persuaded the US to isolate South Africa.
Needless to say, the cold war has ended. But its legacies have not. The re-emergence of "socialist" as an epithet amid this summer's healthcare debate has served as an expression of fear among far-right critics toward the idea of a bigger, more powerful, tax-heavy federal government. Yet this discourse has gone wonky when this term has been placed beside others that would, by any strict definition, appear incompatible. The Obama administration embraces socialism and fascism at once? Mao and Hitler as ideological comrades?
The response among progressives to such associations has ranged from silence to a shaking of heads to a sober litany of examples as to how federal and state governments already provide much-appreciated public services for the common good – public education, fire departments, Medicare, and so forth.
But this reaction is inadequate. It takes the cry of "socialism!" literally, whereas it should be read as representing a more complex set of political feelings. It fails to take full historical account of the xenophobic, hypernationalistic, and, yes, racist uses of this expression.
When Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, among other Southern politicians, voiced criticism of Martin Luther King Jr. and other activists, they did so not on racist grounds, but on anticommunist grounds – a more publicly acceptable stance given the cold war climate of the time. But in hindsight we can easily connect the dots, if there were any doubts about their shared sense of white racial entitlement.
Understanding this history also informs the present. The passion surrounding the expression "socialism" has less to do with the actual meaning of the word, than its associations with foreignness, anti-Americanism, and racial difference. If its reemergence and use sound antiquated and anachronistic, the motivations for its revival become clearer when placed in a context of latent white anxiety toward a black president. The "birther" movement and its concern over Mr. Obama's origins were but an earlier sign of these race-based, xenophobic sentiments held by some.
To his credit, Mr. Obama has sought to defuse the situation by stating that he believes the drive of his harshest critics is not racist in orientation, going so far as to distance himself from comments by former President Jimmy Carter that reinforced this perspective. But this quick resolution risks overlooking a historical pattern of how black leaders have been viewed and treated, and passing, yet again, on a more meaningful conversation about race in America.
Now that President Obama finds himself once more in the rare company of King and Mandela, albeit in the more auspicious setting of the Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps he will embrace the political courage to address racism more thoroughly as a social issue as they did – beyond beverage socials and one-time campaign speeches.
The persistence of racism cannot be attributed alone to such blatant acts as a white cop unfairly arresting a black man. The intersection of Jim Crow and Joseph McCarthy needs to be better understood.
===================
Christopher J. Lee is a professor of history at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where he teaches courses on the history of race and racism.
===================
Though I wonder, weren't people like Pelosi and Reed also called "socialist"?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Why not.
Racist undertones of the 'socialist' epithet
** spoiler omitted **...
Wow, how blatant can you get in the 'it's racist to oppose the administration' meme.
|
Why not.
Racist undertones of the 'socialist' epithet
** spoiler omitted **...
Just like a lot of people don't understand how scientific research works, a lot of people don't understand how academic research in the humanities or social sciences works as well.
A lot of it amounts to little more than raising thought provoking ideas for people to discuss and debate, and in some cases, the more far out the better, because good insights and ideas can come out of the subsequent debate.
That is how this article reads to me, and it probably should not have been thrown up on Yahoo as an editorial or news article by itself. Is it thought-provoking? Yes. Are the people calling Obama (and Pelosi and Reid, as pointed out) a socialist racist? No.
|
|
Men in general having been going to college less than women and the ratios continue to fall. Pretty soon it is going to be 2-1 ratio of women to men (not a bad thing for the guys going to college, but tough on women to find a man that is on par with her educational and financially).
Probably a threadjack, but that's definitely something we as a society are going to have to address sooner or later. It may be true that at the moment men continue to make more money, on average, than women, but that seems to largely be the result of older, well-educated men, as well as men in certain high-paying skilled trades. (Another factor is women leaving the workforce to have children, for various lengths of time, which may leave them with less work experience, year for year, then their male counterparts of similar age.) I think as the older generation retires, that gap is going to narrow and then reverse and people are going to wonder how we got there.
I went out with two pretty black girls back in the dayWhich makes you either a racist or a sexist, or something, because I have it on good authority* that they were ugly girls, and you just perceived them as being pretty because of your own -isms.
* My own unfounded opinion that has no basis in observation or reality, but that I'll assert as fact anyway
You're going to make me scan in some pictures, aren't you? ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
You're going to make me scan in some pictures, aren't you? ;)I went out with two pretty black girls back in the dayWhich makes you either a racist or a sexist, or something, because I have it on good authority* that they were ugly girls, and you just perceived them as being pretty because of your own -isms.
* My own unfounded opinion that has no basis in observation or reality, but that I'll assert as fact anyway
Yes. You have my email, right?
Yes. You have my email, right?You're going to make me scan in some pictures, aren't you? ;)I went out with two pretty black girls back in the dayWhich makes you either a racist or a sexist, or something, because I have it on good authority* that they were ugly girls, and you just perceived them as being pretty because of your own -isms.
* My own unfounded opinion that has no basis in observation or reality, but that I'll assert as fact anyway
Copies please. :)
Director of Brand Strategy
|
That said, I agree that many prominent African Americans in a lot of influential organizations, from Congress to private institutions, do not always support or put forward policies and practices that benefit the typical member of their ethnicity. Denying the social and financial situations of millions of Americans (which are often the results of complex historical and modern societal institutions) in order to give the appearance that these policies do less harm is a common tactic of those who support those policies.Just a question Yoda, because I honestly don't comprehend this...
Why should they?
Why should they what? Support policies that help their people? I'm not saying that they should or shouldn't do so. They should do whatever they want. But when African American members of congress or the city council or whatever cut public services that benefit Harlem, it shouldn't come as a shock that those they aren't supporting should criticize them of being traitorous and hateful to their own kind. I don't know if it's necessarily warranted, but that's the way people work. We are a tribal race despite all our efforts to be accepting of diversity and it is near instinctual for people to defend their tribe, from external or internal threats.
If the situation were reversed and white politicians were supporting policies which would not benefit other white people, but only really help minorities (yes, we're speaking in hypotheticals here), or to take it out of the racial context, one could use class or economic dividers, I imagine you'd have the same feelings of betrayal aimed at him from his own constituency.
The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and then uses that influence to change the rules, it's never going to change, or at least not substantially or at anything resembling the pace it should to really bring equality into the system.
The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and then uses that influence to change the rules, it's never going to change, or at least not substantially or at anything resembling the pace it should to really bring equality into the system.
What if...
This isn't really a "problem" as you put it, but merely a challenge. Maybe the "rules" of the "game" are just fine and equality already exists.Maybe, just maybe, the disparity you (and many others) decry is there because a majority of people don't aspire to better their condition. I have a middle class job; I really don't aspire to climb the corporate ladder into million-dollar management. One of my friends barely ekes out a living working a low-wage job, and he's satisfied with that. Another friend of mine works two high-paying jobs so he can give his wife all kinds of high-dollar stuff.
Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.
|
The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and then uses that influence to change the rules, it's never going to change, or at least not substantially or at anything resembling the pace it should to really bring equality into the system.
What if...
This isn't really a "problem" as you put it, but merely a challenge. Maybe the "rules" of the "game" are just fine and equality already exists.
Maybe, just maybe, the disparity you (and many others) decry is there because a majority of people don't aspire to better their condition. I have a middle class job; I really don't aspire to climb the corporate ladder into million-dollar management. One of my friends barely ekes out a living working a low-wage job, and he's satisfied with that. Another friend of mine works two high-paying jobs so he can give his wife all kinds of high-dollar stuff.Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.
It seems rather unlikely that such drive would exist to such a large degree in white men but not other group, does it not?
|
|
Black people can be very, VERY messed up toward our own kind. As much crap as we take on a regular basis from outside the race, it's this kind of crap and things like the brown paper bag test that infuriates me and saddens me the most.
I think I've heard about that one from my wife, but I'm not sure, is that where you're too dark if your skin is darker than a brown paper bag? it's not something I'd come up against since every member of her family would fail that test.
I've been following this thread for a while and it never ceases to intrigue. Things went off the rails a bit with a bit of a detour into Oneupsmanshipland(comfortably sandwiched in between Newfoundland and Greenland). For anyone who doesn't already know, I'm a black man who has lived(or at least spent time) all over the country in a wide variety of neighborhoods, although I currently live in New York(Derek, what happened? Cuz I'm Brooklyn born and raised and don't tolerate anyone making my hood look bad to the point that a gamer had to move out ). Also, I am of Panamanian descent, so I find Patrick's comments above interesting. (Where were you living at the time? What year was this? And were any of these panamanians black or chinese in ethnicity? Just curious). But that's just for background info...
I think the biggest problem that exists with racism currently in this country is something that I found on newsvine- the idea that on one end(described by the poster to be the "white" end, but in reality could be anyone of any race) in order for a topic/comment/subject/issue/whathaveyou to be found racist, that it must contain a minimum recommended standard of prejudice, and that on the "black" end(or again, anyone), racism is omnipresent- not in the sense that it can be found anywhere(because as noted above several times, it can), but that it is the sole motivation for any decision anyone makes on anything. The cause of(and in a weird way, solution to) these issues is something that I think has only briefly been touched on in this thread: ignorance.
I don't mean ignorance in the racially-tinged sense, I mean ignorance in the purest sense: that of someone who genuinely doesn't know any better- or really, anything at all with respect to the topic. I ran into this a lot when I lived in Northampton, PA in the VERY early 90's as a VERY young man(god..what was I? 11? 12?). I was one of two black people in the school district for the elementary school(three for the junior high school), and to my great misfortune the only other black person for miles around(presumably in my age group) happened to be female. The whole school assumed we were either siblings or boyfriend/girlfriend, which caused a lot of problems as she was neither. Things got worse in jhs, as everyone assumed the black janitor in the attached high school was our father(although the other black kid didn't get this, everyone knew he was adopted). Given a mother of VERY fair complexion(still black) who was already touchy on the subject of race and encouraged me to be equally touchy, and a stepfather who was at work 90% of the time, this lead to a lot of problems, particularly when "real" racism reared it's head. Now that I'm 30 years old(*sigh*...) I can separate a lot of the ignorance from the racism, and no, the line is not always that clear. One of my favorite examples was a particular jerk who enjoyed finding new and different ways to call me nigger without actually SAYING it. Snigger and niggardly were used on several occasions, and the little bastard was never called on it. "Hey, I was just describing the way he laughed! It's in the dictionary, look it up!" was what I remember him saying when we finally got the assistant principal involved(and to answer the above poster, this has been done several times throughout the years by cunning racists, and why many black people have issues with those words...but more on this later). On the other hand, there were several kids at the local afterschool(which I have STILL never forgiven my mother for sending me to- I could have walked home, dammit!!!) that would call me the "chocolate man" over and over again to the point that a few of the younger kids would try to bite me- no, I'm not kidding. At the time, this treatment turned me into a bitter and angry young man(right out of a Spike Lee movie!) and affected any relations I got into with people outside of my race until about high school, when I made a frakkin' rainbow coalition of friends that I still have to this day. Happy ending n' all that. Now, where does ignorance fit in here? To avoid turning this post into a new adventure path, I'll keep it restricted to the above examples.
With respect to the "white" end mentioned above, ignorance refers to the ignorance of the ambiguity that is often used by those who wish to keep their racist views hidden from the population at large. The kid I mentioned above is a prime example. Far from stupid, he was certain to mutter such comments under his breath and in the company of others he knew would take his side in such issues. Not necessarily because they were his friends per se, but because they were rational(for kids anyway) people who would buy his explanations- even go so far as to defend him. After all, he didn't walk down the street with a white hood on, right? There's no WAY he could be racist...
Ah, such halcyon memories.
While racism/prejudice/etc are certainly quite stupid, those who partake in them to a serious extent very rarely are, and will take pains to maintain a racist lifestyle with a minimum of criticism. The vast majority(hell, I'll even say all) of the people on this end of the spectrum are nice, well meaning, courteous people that most importantly, assume others are until proven otherwise in no uncertain terms. Hence, someone they know/love/respect could be quite racist, and until the more obvious signs of it show up, they would be none the wiser- even defending such people and their right to speak. After all, no burning cross, no racism, right? Besides, who has the time to go over everything everyone says with a fine toothed comb and assume the worst?
With respect to the "black" end mentioned above, ignorance has to do with those that have that time. Perhaps it's out of sloth("who has the time to consider each individual comment? I'm just gonna be pissed off!") or just a lot of bad experiences("I'm never going to let anyone treat me like that ever again!"), but there are some people who consider racism to be omnipresent, as I described above. Namely at the time, me. I was pissed, and my mom's subtle goading of my anger didn't help things. I wanted to beat those kids up just as hard as the jerk at school- perhaps harder, one of them had some sharp teeth. It didn't occur to me until years later that the kids, while stupid, were just that- stupid. No, they were just as racist as the kid who started the whole chocolate rumor(a snot-nose who I'm sure has been beaten up for other things since then and is now a productive member of society with 2.5 kids, a wife and a mortgage), just as racist as the kid mentioned in the above snigger/niggardly example. From this point of view, the world is made up of deftly-woven racist conspiracies that lead back to the Man(as depicted in Undercover Brother). It's a hard, lonely place where noone can be trusted and people on the other end of the spectrum are unwitting pawns at best- and devious co-consipirators at worst.
So, where am I going with all this? Nowhere, really. Just commenting on a little-used point in a VERY interesting thread. I think ignorance- interestingly enough- could be the balm that takes the sting out of what could be the beginning of personal attacks and take the thread itself away from oneupsmanship and back into actual discussion.
It seems rather unlikely that such drive would exist to such a large degree in white men but not other group, does it not?The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and then uses that influence to change the rules, it's never going to change, or at least not substantially or at anything resembling the pace it should to really bring equality into the system.
What if...
This isn't really a "problem" as you put it, but merely a challenge. Maybe the "rules" of the "game" are just fine and equality already exists.
Maybe, just maybe, the disparity you (and many others) decry is there because a majority of people don't aspire to better their condition. I have a middle class job; I really don't aspire to climb the corporate ladder into million-dollar management. One of my friends barely ekes out a living working a low-wage job, and he's satisfied with that. Another friend of mine works two high-paying jobs so he can give his wife all kinds of high-dollar stuff.Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.
Obviously there have been social challenges to others in the past. What we are seeing is inertial. People in positions for a large number of years.
Even still there may be cultural/social differences between groups that help exert external motivators to certain groups over others. For example, while people talking about how bad off minorities are off, they almost always leave asians out of the equation. Why? Because statistically, asians do at least as well if not better than their white counterparts. Does the white culture accept asians more easily or do asians tend to have a culture/social structure that motivates hard work and success?
I think I've heard about that one from my wife, but I'm not sure, is that where you're too dark if your skin is darker than a brown paper bag? it's not something I'd come up against since every member of her family would fail that test.
Black people can be very, VERY messed up toward our own kind. As much crap as we take on a regular basis from outside the race, it's this kind of crap and things like the brown paper bag test that infuriates me and saddens me the most.
From what I remember my grandmother telling me, this was a test often used to determine whether or not someone was black or hispanic in origin, which was a serious issue in areas where racial segregation was practiced on a legal level. My grandmother(s) have been dead for several years, so I can't confirm this, but I will check with other elder folk I know.
It seems rather unlikely that such drive would exist to such a large degree in white men but not other group, does it not?
It's not a racial thing; it's cultural.
There are another group of men who succeed even moreso than White men; Orientals...again, for cultural reasons and not racial.
Those in America who live in (and relish, mind you) a culture of impoverishment really--really--don't want a better life. There are extreme examples of hobos who adamantly DON'T want a job, homeless who don't want a home, etc. And there are those who have figured out that if they have a bunch of kids, live in HUD houses, and claim disability, then they can collect just enough welfare that they'll never have to work another day AND they can have 24-inch rims on their low-riding Hummer. Rather than a culture of hard work, theirs is a culture of working the system.
You'll find members of every race with this cultural mindset, but my own observations are that 1) most of those possessing this culture of dependence are Black, and 2) Blacks who choose to better their situation through diligence and hard work are very often riduculed for turning their backs on their brothers...especially when they become Conservatives and curtail the government dole.
It's a sad ordeal, that culture. But the opportunity to rise above it is entirely theirs for the taking. I'm just not convinced that there is REAL racism anymore. Continued charges of such ring ever hollower.
Freehold DM,
+1 on your long post. Well done!
|
|
The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and...
The story above reminded me of a story of my own.
I went to the "ethnic" school in my hometown. It was about 50% white, 45% black, 5% everybody else. I was on the soccer team, and most of the players had never played soccer (outside of something in school) before. So needless to say, we were one of the worse teams in the state for the first few years (my freshman year was the first time they offered it at our school).
My senior year, we were played the team that was the best in the state. This team was from a smaller rural town and the team was entirely white. And this time though we were on. We had several years to finally start getting a program going and with a coach that stuck around for more than a season. We were winning. The crappy, no talent "ethnic" school was beating the best team in the state, something out of a hollywood film. And then the other team pulled out their secret weapon.
They began to call our players names, bad racial names. This started to upset our players and got them off their game, which was the entire point. The other team didn't care about the race of our players but they did care that our players cared and would get upset about it. Our players were getting "played", and we might have this amazing victory slip through our fingers.
During a time out the players were complaining about the name calling. I turned to them and said that they were just trying to upset us. "Its working, I want to kick that guy's ass." So I said, "Next time he calls you a name, smile as big as you can, and say 'Your momma.' Don't say it loud or angrily, just calmly with a big a smile say 'Your momma'." They all burst out laughing, and did it. Next thing you know it wasn't our team that was lossing their cool, it was their players. We won the game and they wanted to try to jump our team after the game but were forced on to the bus by their coach.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Charles Payne would disagree with you.
The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and...
Well, if it's on Glenn Beck, then it must be valid.
In any case, that's one man's experience. That doesn't invalidate the common experiences of millions of people which are influences quite heavily by race and class stratification.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Thank you Yoda, I was not understanding what you meant and apparently read things into it that weren't there. Of course everyone howls when their own ox is gored.
The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and then uses that influence to change the rules, it's never going to change, or at least not substantially or at anything resembling the pace it should to really bring equality into the system.
I'm curious how you feel the power structure is skewed to upper class white men?
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.
Really? "Get off the porch?" You're not strengthening your position very well though your use of the phrase certainly illuminates your perspective.
Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.Really? "Get off the porch?" You're not strengthening your position very well though your use of the phrase certainly illuminates your perspective.
Yoda, man just...DON'T.
Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.Really? "Get off the porch?" You're not strengthening your position very well though your use of the phrase certainly illuminates your perspective.
I'm sorry. What does that phrase mean to you? Where I'm from it means "get busy rather than watching the world go by." Or something like that. With that meaning in mind, I thought it worked nicely. How does that "illumante my perspective" to you?
|
|
Charles Payne would disagree with you.
The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and...Well, if it's on Glenn Beck, then it must be valid.
In any case, that's one man's experience. That doesn't invalidate the common experiences of millions of people which are influences quite heavily by race and class stratification.
If you want to learn how to do something right, listen to the man who has done it right before. Listening to the advice of people who have yet to succeed rarely leads to success. Charles Payne was on Beck to disagree with a point Beck had made the day before. Payne is also a highly successful man who has raised himself out of poverty through his own hard work and intelligence. I find him quite inspirational to listen to whenever I hear him talk about his life.
Anyway Payne is not the only one to say the same thing. I seem to remember Bill Cosby saying very similar things.
Lots of people in this world are given a hard row to hoe, very often through no fault of their own. Hard work does not always lead to success but it works more often than the alternative.
I'm sorry. What does that phrase mean to you? Where I'm from it means "get busy rather than watching the world go by." Or something like that. With that meaning in mind, I thought it worked nicely. How does that "illumante my perspective" to you?Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.Really? "Get off the porch?" You're not strengthening your position very well though your use of the phrase certainly illuminates your perspective.
To be fair, I would have mentioned something on this as well, but racial/racist innuendo is something that varies widely by one's location. I had no idea how offensive something involving the term porch could be until I watched Clerks 2. I turned to my wife, who's family is from North Carolina for explanation, and she gave me a blank stare and a shrug, explaining that one had to go farther south for such terminology to be used regularly.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Thank you Yoda, I was not understanding what you meant and apparently read things into it that weren't there. Of course everyone howls when their own ox is gored.
I'm curious how you feel the power structure is skewed to upper class white men?The problem is that the power structures in America (and most of the world) are highly skewed to benefit upper class white men and for members of the lower classes, other ethnic groups or women to have a chance to play ball, they have to support that system. Until someone reaches a position of influence by playing the game and then uses that influence to change the rules, it's never going to change, or at least not substantially or at anything resembling the pace it should to really bring equality into the system.
White men have a disproportionate level of wealth and influence in this and many other developed nations. Unless one feels that white men are inherently more intelligent, talented, and driven than any other group, this must be the historical legacy of exploitation based on race, class, and gender.
I don't think this is something inherent to white men, but rather a product of class stratification. Those in power are going to, naturally, try to maintain the status quo and that means that even as great strides are made in civil and human rights those with the most power are almost always adverse to those changes and add friction to an already slow-moving social mechanism. It just happens that our nation has a deep-seated history of exploitation based on class and particularly race, and the two have informed one another for centuries. The specifics of America are such that upper class white men hold and have always held the power. That's just the way it is.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Except for, you know, in the White House and the House of Representatives. :P
The specifics of America are such that upper class white men hold and have always held the power. That's just the way it is.
Two prominent members of a group of hundreds of top-level law-makers does not an upheaval of power make.
|
|
To be fair, I would have mentioned something on this as well, but racial/racist innuendo is something that varies widely by one's location. I had no idea how offensive something involving the term porch could be until I watched Clerks 2. I turned to my wife, who's family is from North Carolina for explanation, and she gave me a blank stare and a shrug, explaining that one had to go farther south for such terminology to be used regularly.I'm sorry. What does that phrase mean to you? Where I'm from it means "get busy rather than watching the world go by." Or something like that. With that meaning in mind, I thought it worked nicely. How does that "illumante my perspective" to you?Maybe the whole structure is just fine, but what makes one group successful and another squalorous is a desire to get off the porch.Really? "Get off the porch?" You're not strengthening your position very well though your use of the phrase certainly illuminates your perspective.
I believe, though I could be wrong, the idea of the porch, in relationship to slavery, has to do with being a house slave. But I don't think that idiom works in connection with the way Malachi used it as "getting off the porch" in relationship to slavery means something along the lines of stop being a stooge for the men in power. Malachi used it the way I have more often heard it which refers to the idea of lazy people sitting on their porch as others moved along.
|
|
Two prominent members of a group of hundreds of top-level law-makers does not an upheaval of power make.Except for, you know, in the White House and the House of Representatives. :P
The specifics of America are such that upper class white men hold and have always held the power. That's just the way it is.
The President of the United States is not one among equals. He is the most powerful man in the world.
For that matter he is not strictly a law maker either but a member of the executive branch. But thats just being nitpicky.
|
|
"I have piles and piles of black friends."
Really? Still?
'Piles' strikes me as an odd word to use in the context. I am sure I am just looking for something more to read in this. Still.
Well, he was gonna say 'oodles,' but then he thought that the Great and Powerful Poodle Lobby might take offense...
Random humor break on race in America.