Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#202 Mar 01 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,509 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Black people think OJ was innocent...?


{Run-on sentence ahead}

That was a joke, but some do, but from what I gathered, many people didn't, they just wanted to see "justice" for a black man, which is ironic, if he's guilty.
Apparently some white people thought him innocent as well, or at least not guilty. Wasn't half the jury white?

I saw little of race coming into play in the OJ Simpson case. It was more about money, fame and purchased power.

However, I was reminded of The Hurricane when I read this post. Historic events and a good tune. I've not listened to it in years.

edit - to add link.

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 9:19pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#203 Mar 01 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
Black people think OJ was innocent...?


{Run-on sentence ahead}

That was a joke, but some do, but from what I gathered, many people didn't, they just wanted to see "justice" for a black man, which is ironic, if he's guilty. People were still pissed off about Rodney King. When I was in Middle School, the school didn't allow us to see/hear the verdict of the O.J. Trial..


Ah, I gotcha. I remember sitting in the band room watching the verdict thinking, "Why the hell are we watching this...?" I guess it was just history in the making or somethin'.

Almalieque wrote:
Belkira wrote:
But racism isn't "engendering competition between the races." It's favoring one race over another because you believe it to be superior. That's not happening in either situation.


Those are my words exactly.. I just wanted to take this time to go over the few times that we actually agree.


Smiley: lol
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#204 Mar 01 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Elinda wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.


Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.


I know you're not asking me, but I would say that it is not racism. Mostly because the person in question is not purchasing things from someone of his race because he finds his race superior to any other. He/she is only doing it to "help out" someone of his own race out of a feeling of solidarity. There's nothing wrong with that, really.


I agree with you on the first part, but I do think that there's something wrong with "racial solidarity" when it involves some form of competition (I mean, as opposed to celebratory or historical situations, like Black History Month, or a multi-cultural day at a school). I would consider choosing to shop specifically at black-owned stores to fall under that category.

I'm guilty of the same feelings in some situations, as are a lot of people, I think. I've always got a soft spot for a good American white basketball player, for example, since they seem to be so few and far between.

But what do such feelings do, other than perpetuate competition between races? I don't see them doing anything but increasing the "us vs. them" mentality, or at the very least, preventing us from bridging cultural divides.

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 1:36pm by Eske

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 1:41pm by Eske
The black person choosing to shop at a black person owned store is not racism. In gbaji's tidy little white world of dis-reality the individual is choosing the 'black store' over the 'white store'. However, shopping at the store of his choice, because it's owned by a relative a jew, a black person or even an gAy, is not making any statement about the other store at all.


Mmm...I'm having trouble expressing this.

My intention isn't to say that choosing a black-owned store is inherently bad because it also represents a flouting of say, a white-owned store.

See, the other stores don't come into play, as I see it. It's simply the act of showing preference for something or someone due to a shared race, which is the problem.

Perhaps the word "competition" isn't right. I meant it to distinguish from things like Black History Month, or a multicultural fair. Those events, I would argue, do not show preference of one race or the other. They're more of a celebration of a culture, or educational. By contrast, supporting white basketball players is an example of me showing preference for my own race.

I think that such insularity is, by its nature, counterproductive to a world where one's race has no impact such matters. Isn't that what we should be striving for? One where my pride in an athlete isn't because of what race he is? Any benefits from "racial solidarity" (if they even exist) should be superseded by that.

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 3:41pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#205 Mar 01 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
I think that such insularity is, by its nature, counterproductive to a world where one's race has no impact such matters. Isn't that what we should be striving for? One where my pride in an athlete isn't because of what race he is? Any benefits from "racial solidarity" (if they even exist) should be superseded by that.


Sure. But at the same time, black Americans are in no where near the shape that white Americans are as far as wealth. So to me, helping out a black proprietor because he's black and he's selling the same thing as the white proprietor seems understandable. Doing the opposite seems, to me, pretty stupid.

Cheering for the white basketball player because he's white and white athletes have performed well below black athletes doesn't seem bad, to me. Like you said, you aren't booing the black athletes, they don't really enter into it. You just want to see an underdog come out on top.
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#206 Mar 01 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,509 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
One where my pride in an athlete isn't because of what race he is? Any benefits from "racial solidarity" (if they even exist) should be superseded by that.
What would justify pride in athletics?

A family member?

An Alma mater?

Our bonds with people are because we share stuff with them, whether it be the color of our skin, the old neighborhood, or the inexplicable love of VW Buses.

Don't confuse preference with prejudice, nor solidarity with enmity.






____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#207 Mar 01 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Bear with me...I'm trying to sort through my own thoughts on this while simultaneously managing some printing jobs @ work.

Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
I think that such insularity is, by its nature, counterproductive to a world where one's race has no impact such matters. Isn't that what we should be striving for? One where my pride in an athlete isn't because of what race he is? Any benefits from "racial solidarity" (if they even exist) should be superseded by that.


Sure. But at the same time, black Americans are in no where near the shape that white Americans are as far as wealth. So to me, helping out a black proprietor because he's black and he's selling the same thing as the white proprietor seems understandable. Doing the opposite seems, to me, pretty stupid.


I dunno. There are millions of white Americans who are poor, and struggling, as well. There's probably one on the same block as that black store-owner, too.

There are people of all races who have it rough here. As I see it (really, as I'm trying to get myself to see it) we shouldn't be worrying about divvying up those that are suffering into the ones that we care more about and the ones that we care less about, especially not by racial lines. Why speak in generalities? Why is a suffering black person more worthy of anyone's help than a suffering white person? Because some other white people have it pretty good?

It doesn't strike me as rational.

This hypothetical patron should be making his decision based upon other factors. Which store owner is a better person? Which has a better product? Which needs more help?

I guess it's the same old affirmative action debate, really. Do we temporarily show preference for blacks, until we've gauged that their race has generally attained equal social footing? I suppose I've tipped my hand that I'm against it. It's easy to support affirmative action when one is talking in a general sense. I find it difficult to support it in a specific situation, like that of our store owners. Making that pick to support the black owner instead of the white one, out of a desire to help his race, doesn't strike me as noble. It strikes me as silly...there are better deciding factors between the two than their race.

Belkira wrote:
Cheering for the white basketball player because he's white and white athletes have performed well below black athletes doesn't seem bad, to me. Like you said, you aren't booing the black athletes, they don't really enter into it. You just want to see an underdog come out on top.


I think to me it's just an arbitrary division...in-and-of-itself, it's harmless. Nobody's harmed by me rooting for a white athlete. But it's that viewpoint that becomes harmful, I think. Speaking of myself, I think that it's got some correlation with my own more negative racial hangups. Either that racial preference is symptomatic of the negative thoughts and stereotypes that I have to occasionally fight off, or it's a direct cause of the mindset that creates them.

I'm having trouble putting it into words, though.

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 4:27pm by Eske

Edited, Mar 1st 2011 4:34pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#208 Mar 01 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
{Run-on sentence ahead}
Wouldn't it have been easier to just put periods in than to type that?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#209 Mar 01 2011 at 5:11 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Eske wrote:
I dunno. There are millions of white Americans who are poor, and struggling, as well. There's probably one on the same block as that black store-owner, too.


That's why I said that it's important to support the people who are supporting you. It doesn't necessarily have to be of the same race, but in many cases it is. That is why I was generalizing, but Gbaji wasn't grasping that concept. Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race and the products that you desire (movies, clothes, music, food, etc.) are done by the same race. So, if you want to support your community and/or support the things that you desire, then you have to support those people, which is primarily people of your own race. It's NOT necessarily choosing to do business with a random black person because s/he is black. I'm not naive to not know that indeed is the case sometimes, but that wasn't ever my point.

If every black person supports the black friends and black families within their own communities, then the entire race will benefit.

There's so much more than just that. People aren't necessarily making racial sides, but statistics are statistics. I am far from a fan of statistics, but if stats say that black people are most likely negatively affected by "x", i.e. sickle cell, it would be foolish not to concentrate on the population that is most effected by it. If that population is "black people", then that means your family and friends are in risk, so it is important to take that stuff in consideration because it will not have the same value of importance by another group.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#210 Mar 01 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,150 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race



I just did a quick phone survey of my friends and family, and guess what! Yup, even the brown and black and yellow ones are all members of the human race!

Whodathunkit?
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#211 Mar 01 2011 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
paulsol wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race



I just did a quick phone survey of my friends and family, and guess what! Yup, even the brown and black and yellow ones are all members of the human race!

Whodathunkit?


I think that doesn't contradict my claim in any fashion, shape or form. Chances are very high that your parents are the same race as you. Your siblings ARE the same race as you. As a result, chances are also high that your uncles, aunts, nephews, cousins, nieces are all the same race as you.

Chances are also high that the majority of your friends are more like you than not like you that share similar or the same interests.

What exactly is your point? Are you denying what I'm saying as the truth?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#212 Mar 01 2011 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Is it racism (or racial discrimination if you prefer that term) for a member of a racial group to take actions purely because they help out a member of his own racial group? I'm not talking about a black person buying Jet magazine. I'm talking about a black person choosing to buy groceries at the black owned store instead of a white owned one, even if the products are identical. I'm talking about a black person doing this because he wants to help out the black person who owns the store.


Is that racism? I've been trying for like 3 pages now to get you to actually address this question and you keep tap dancing around it. Answer it please.


I know you're not asking me, but I would say that it is not racism. Mostly because the person in question is not purchasing things from someone of his race because he finds his race superior to any other. He/she is only doing it to "help out" someone of his own race out of a feeling of solidarity. There's nothing wrong with that, really.


But this just gets us back to the semi-arbitrary argument about the definition of "racism". Not all definitions of racism require that the motivation be a sense of superiority. Also, I included the parenthetical "racial discrimination" specifically to address this. Regardless of what you view the literal definition of "racism" to mean, is it "right" in terms of racial interactions for people to do this? Does it further the ideal of a color blind society, of equality for all people, etc?

I guess I'm asking people to look past the definitions and look at the broader issue. I raised the point earlier, that had white people done that (help their own race ahead of others) we would not have ended slavery or passed a civil rights act. I also happen to think that clinging to a definition of racism that excludes anyone doing it for reasons other than superiority is just a dodge of the larger issue. It's still wrong to treat people differently, purely because of the color of their skin. At least that's my opinion.


As to the economic angle, there's a counter to that though, right? I mean, didn't we already try this with segregation? One of the reasons segregation was created was to protect burgeoning black owned businesses from competition with established white ones. We tend to forget this today, but segregation was actually advocated by many leading black thinkers and social leaders in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. And it was for exactly the same flawed (IMO) reason:

The thinking is that if black people are encouraged to spend their money at black owned businesses, it'll help them grow. But if that is part of a larger "each group sticks to its own" concept, then it wont ever work. The total amount of money held in the hands of black people is what it is. Passing it back and forth and avoiding engaging with the rest of the economy is only going to be counter productive. My side point here is that if instead of having black owners target their goods and services to black consumers, and instilling in black consumers the importance of "helping out" their own group by buying those goods and services from those black owners, they instead just participated in a larger economic system without any regard to skin color, they'd be better off.


The proposal is essentially self-segregation. And I really don't think that works.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#213 Mar 01 2011 at 9:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

See, the other stores don't come into play, as I see it. It's simply the act of showing preference for something or someone due to a shared race, which is the problem.


Often times it is merely an acknowledgment of need (e.g., he's black, so he and his family are more likely to need it)-- even if, for example, I am poor, and my parents are poor, primarily by virtue of being white, I'm more likely to be related to or close to someone who has the money and desire to help me out of a jam.

But moreover it's a matter of representation. People of not only your race, but your shared culture, are more likely to cater to the services and values that are important to you. That can lead to an increased likelihood to stock or produce products that are important to you (much like supporting a local store that provides fringe music that you like even if you can get other albums you like at a more successful, mainstream store for cheaper). In some cases, the products and services are related directly TO the race or the culture of the race.

It can also be a reflection of comfort and/or customer service. We know, for example, that due to perceptions of being unwelcome, minorities often do not use public facilities and services, especially when those places are in "white" neighborhoods and staffed by white people. Also, most people have their own conception of ideal customer service-- they want someone friendly, but there's also too friendly and not friendly enough. Do you want to go to an establishment where the atmosphere is more casual, fun, and occasionally boisterous, or a more "professional" place where the people generally only engage with you as necessary and otherwise don't bother you? Sometimes that's the difference between establishments operated by different races, and there's nothing wrong with being more comfortable than one over the other, or wanting the one that is more familiar to you culturally to succeed.

I'm tl;dr'ing again, but since you might actually read it: My SO's mother had surgery recently in Chicago, in an area where there's a large Indian population (India, not Native American). She had to share a room with an Indian woman, who had nearly a dozen of her friends and family in the room. She didn't want many visitors and was bothered by their presence because she was trying to rest and recover, understandably. Some people she just didn't want to see her in the state she was in. But to the Indian family, the presence of that many people meant being valued and cared for (though evidently the woman wasn't even sick, but probably wanted rest or attention). This actually resulted in hostility as the cultures clashed.

So if there were separate "white" and "Indian" hospitals, would it be racism for one to prefer the one catering largely to your race, by your race? The fact is that you are more likely to prefer a business in part BECAUSE of the race and culture of the people who work there, even setting prejudices aside.

White people are even less likely to understand because ignorance of other cultures can be viewed as an opportunity to learn about them, which can be a positive experience. Minorities, on the other hand, are often already relatively familiar with the majority culture even if they don't have much firsthand experience with it.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#214 Mar 01 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I guess I'm asking people to look past the definitions and look at the broader issue. I raised the point earlier, that had white people done that (help their own race ahead of others) we would not have ended slavery or passed a civil rights act.


And I've asked you several times to show the correlation between political power and racism.. Oh, wait.. that's right, it's "irrelevant"

Gbaji wrote:
The thinking is that if black people are encouraged to spend their money at black owned businesses, it'll help them grow. But if that is part of a larger "each group sticks to its own" concept, then it wont ever work. The total amount of money held in the hands of black people is what it is. Passing it back and forth and avoiding engaging with the rest of the economy is only going to be counter productive. My side point here is that if instead of having black owners target their goods and services to black consumers, and instilling in black consumers the importance of "helping out" their own group by buying those goods and services from those black owners, they instead just participated in a larger economic system without any regard to skin color, they'd be better off.


The proposal is essentially self-segregation. And I really don't think that works.


I'll give you credit for having the cojones to talk so broadly about something you know nothing about.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#215 Mar 01 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Kachi wrote:
Often times it is merely an acknowledgment of need (e.g., he's black, so he and his family are more likely to need it)--


But doesn't that just perpetuate a racial stereotype? You assume that someone is poor because they are black? But if the guy owns a business, is he "poor"?


Quote:
... even if, for example, I am poor, and my parents are poor, primarily by virtue of being white, I'm more likely to be related to or close to someone who has the money and desire to help me out of a jam.


Is this true? More to the point (and back to my starting point), will you ever realize when it's not true? If your criteria is "black==poor", then how do we as a society move beyond the issue of race?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#216 Mar 01 2011 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I guess I'm asking people to look past the definitions and look at the broader issue. I raised the point earlier, that had white people done that (help their own race ahead of others) we would not have ended slavery or passed a civil rights act.


And I've asked you several times to show the correlation between political power and racism.. Oh, wait.. that's right, it's "irrelevant"


It might help your cause if you could clearly and concisely explain why you think this is relevant instead? Because from where I sit it looks like you're just tossing in random non sequiturs. Why do you ask that question? I honestly have no clue why you think that in any way constitutes a legitimate response to the words you quoted.

Given that, I'm not going to sit here playing 20 questions with you trying to guess what point you're trying to make so that I can adequately respond.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#217 Mar 01 2011 at 10:06 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,150 posts
Almalieque wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race



I just did a quick phone survey of my friends and family, and guess what! Yup, even the brown and black and yellow ones are all members of the human race!

Whodathunkit?


I think that doesn't contradict my claim in any fashion, shape or form. Chances are very high that your parents are the same race as you. Your siblings ARE the same race as you. As a result, chances are also high that your uncles, aunts, nephews, cousins, nieces are all the same race as you.

Chances are also high that the majority of your friends are more like you than not like you that share similar or the same interests.

What exactly is your point? Are you denying what I'm saying as the truth?


My point is that we are all of the human race, and unpopular a statement as it may be, it takes a racist to attach labels to other humans in an effort to divide us all into groups as though we are of different species.

If you want to label groups of humans as having different cultures, then go right ahead, but imo, only racists are able to divide humans into races.

Thats my opinion anyway.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#218 Mar 01 2011 at 10:19 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
I guess I'm asking people to look past the definitions and look at the broader issue. I raised the point earlier, that had white people done that (help their own race ahead of others) we would not have ended slavery or passed a civil rights act.


And I've asked you several times to show the correlation between political power and racism.. Oh, wait.. that's right, it's "irrelevant"


It might help your cause if you could clearly and concisely explain why you think this is relevant instead? Because from where I sit it looks like you're just tossing in random non sequiturs. Why do you ask that question? I honestly have no clue why you think that in any way constitutes a legitimate response to the words you quoted.

Given that, I'm not going to sit here playing 20 questions with you trying to guess what point you're trying to make so that I can adequately respond.



Seriously?.. your argument stated that if white people only supported each other, then they wouldn't have ended slavery or passed a civil rights act. I'm asking you for the connection of "slavery/civil rights" (which rooted from racism) and white people supporting their own?

You do realize that supporting your own doesn't mean to oppress others? The U.S civil rights has nothing to do with economically supporting your race. I can choose not to buy from Mr. Tanaka, but my brother Jose, while at the same time think Mr. Tanaka should have the same rights as the next person.

You are implying that isn't the case, so explain to me how that isn't the case.

Your whole argument is that if black people have the majority power, under the thought process of helping each other out, then they will some how repeat history.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#219 Mar 01 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
paulsol wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Chances are, your family and friends are of the same race



I just did a quick phone survey of my friends and family, and guess what! Yup, even the brown and black and yellow ones are all members of the human race!

Whodathunkit?


I think that doesn't contradict my claim in any fashion, shape or form. Chances are very high that your parents are the same race as you. Your siblings ARE the same race as you. As a result, chances are also high that your uncles, aunts, nephews, cousins, nieces are all the same race as you.

Chances are also high that the majority of your friends are more like you than not like you that share similar or the same interests.

What exactly is your point? Are you denying what I'm saying as the truth?


My point is that we are all of the human race, and unpopular a statement as it may be, it takes a racist to attach labels to other humans in an effort to divide us all into groups as though we are of different species.

If you want to label groups of humans as having different cultures, then go right ahead, but imo, only racists are able to divide humans into races.

Thats my opinion anyway.


Well, I value you for saying that is your opinion, but I do think it's silly. I want to be able to say apples for apples and oranges for oranges and not just fruit or even worse, food. If you want to get on that level of "race", what about animals? Do you think it's equally wrong to label animals as what they are?

What people are doing is creating this false reason for their own problems. Labels aren't the problem, it's the people using the labels. I can refer to a Chinese man as Chinese and still think of him as equal. The label doesn't degrade him. I do admit, sometimes labels are uncalled for, but in the general sense, labels are widely used in everything we do just for simplicity reasons.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#220 Mar 01 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
gbaji wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Often times it is merely an acknowledgment of need (e.g., he's black, so he and his family are more likely to need it)--


But doesn't that just perpetuate a racial stereotype? You assume that someone is poor because they are black? But if the guy owns a business, is he "poor"?

It's an acknowledgment of a statistical reality.
#221 Mar 01 2011 at 10:59 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
I'll give you credit for having the cojones to talk so broadly about something you know nothing about.


That's practically his specialty!

At the risk of having another conversation with him:

Quote:
But doesn't that just perpetuate a racial stereotype? You assume that someone is poor because they are black? But if the guy owns a business, is he "poor"?


Black people ARE poorer. A black business owner is likely considered at least middle class by the black community even if by more objective measures he falls into a lower SES category. But that aside, you're worried about black people stereotyping other black people as poor?

It's pretty simple: black people patronizing black businesses keep money in the black community, which is a concern when the black community needs money and white people have no real vested interest in supporting black businesses, and in fact are prone to prefer white businesses if for no reason other than personal comfort and market demographic targeting.

Quote:
Is this true? More to the point (and back to my starting point), will you ever realize when it's not true? If your criteria is "black==poor", then how do we as a society move beyond the issue of race?


It is true, and we'll know when it's not true based on the same measures we use to determine that is currently is. When the black community no longer has such a significant gap in measure of SES and social capital, there will certainly be a strong argument for scaling back compensatory efforts.

Someone today was complaining to me about how our university offers as many minority-based scholarships as merit-based scholarships, while she can barely afford her education despite working full time (even though she will likely qualify); however, she went to the best school in her area (a very expensive private school) and her father is helping her with her loans, an advantage I can assure you few minorities are privy to regardless of their merit otherwise.

Quote:
What people are doing is creating this false reason for their own problems. Labels aren't the problem, it's the people using the labels. I can refer to a Chinese man as Chinese and still think of him as equal. The label doesn't degrade him. I do admit, sometimes labels are uncalled for, but in the general sense, labels are widely used in everything we do just for simplicity reasons.


Exactly. There is nothing inherently racist about using labels like white and black, and even generalizing them to wider cultural norms in certain cases.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#222 Mar 01 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
Quote:
If you want to get on that level of "race", what about animals?


Animals come in different species. People don't.

Whats your point?

In fact don't bother. I'm not interested in what you have to say. You're dull as fUck.
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#223 Mar 02 2011 at 6:20 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
paulsol wrote:
Quote:
If you want to get on that level of "race", what about animals?


Animals come in different species. People don't.

Whats your point?

In fact don't bother. I'm not interested in what you have to say. You're dull as fUck.


Species, breeds, races, ethnicities, nationalities,etc. don't you see that these are all unnecessary labels that we use?

Kachi wrote:
Black people ARE poorer. A black business owner is likely considered at least middle class by the black community even if by more objective measures he falls into a lower SES category.


I'm not sure if I 100% agree with this. Are you speaking in general terms of comparison or are you saying that there aren't any successful rich black business owners?

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 2:21pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#224 Mar 02 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

See, the other stores don't come into play, as I see it. It's simply the act of showing preference for something or someone due to a shared race, which is the problem.


Often times it is merely an acknowledgment of need (e.g., he's black, so he and his family are more likely to need it)-- even if, for example, I am poor, and my parents are poor, primarily by virtue of being white, I'm more likely to be related to or close to someone who has the money and desire to help me out of a jam.

But moreover it's a matter of representation. People of not only your race, but your shared culture, are more likely to cater to the services and values that are important to you. That can lead to an increased likelihood to stock or produce products that are important to you (much like supporting a local store that provides fringe music that you like even if you can get other albums you like at a more successful, mainstream store for cheaper). In some cases, the products and services are related directly TO the race or the culture of the race.

It can also be a reflection of comfort and/or customer service. We know, for example, that due to perceptions of being unwelcome, minorities often do not use public facilities and services, especially when those places are in "white" neighborhoods and staffed by white people. Also, most people have their own conception of ideal customer service-- they want someone friendly, but there's also too friendly and not friendly enough. Do you want to go to an establishment where the atmosphere is more casual, fun, and occasionally boisterous, or a more "professional" place where the people generally only engage with you as necessary and otherwise don't bother you? Sometimes that's the difference between establishments operated by different races, and there's nothing wrong with being more comfortable than one over the other, or wanting the one that is more familiar to you culturally to succeed.

I'm tl;dr'ing again, but since you might actually read it: My SO's mother had surgery recently in Chicago, in an area where there's a large Indian population (India, not Native American). She had to share a room with an Indian woman, who had nearly a dozen of her friends and family in the room. She didn't want many visitors and was bothered by their presence because she was trying to rest and recover, understandably. Some people she just didn't want to see her in the state she was in. But to the Indian family, the presence of that many people meant being valued and cared for (though evidently the woman wasn't even sick, but probably wanted rest or attention). This actually resulted in hostility as the cultures clashed.

So if there were separate "white" and "Indian" hospitals, would it be racism for one to prefer the one catering largely to your race, by your race? The fact is that you are more likely to prefer a business in part BECAUSE of the race and culture of the people who work there, even setting prejudices aside.


Well, you're adding some stuff here. I'm not talking about situations where differences in culture lead to one option being preferable to another. I don't see anything wrong with preferring a "white" hospital in your example. But I'm talking about someone making decisions solely on race...say, just skin color alone. "I'm going to support this guy because he's black like me, and I like to support people who are black like me." That kind of thing. Take my white basketball player anecdote, for example. I'm not supporting white basketball players for some clear and rational benefit. It's just a blind adherence to racial dividing lines. I identify with them more, so I prefer them. This perpetuates an idea within myself that I inherently like white people better than other races. What good results? And does it outweigh the positive ideals of a "color blind" society? I'd say no.

Quote:
Minorities, on the other hand, are often already relatively familiar with the majority culture even if they don't have much firsthand experience with it.


I can't say that I agree with that statement at all.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 8:52am by Eske

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 9:01am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#225 Mar 02 2011 at 11:17 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
Black people ARE poorer. A black business owner is likely considered at least middle class by the black community even if by more objective measures he falls into a lower SES category.
I'm not sure if I 100% agree with this. Are you speaking in general terms of comparison or are you saying that there aren't any successful rich black business owners?
Come on now, nobody is this stupid.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#226 Mar 02 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

I'm not sure if I 100% agree with this. Are you speaking in general terms of comparison or are you saying that there aren't any successful rich black business owners?


I thought it was clear from the context that I was speaking in general.

Quote:
I identify with them more, so I prefer them. This perpetuates an idea within myself that I inherently like white people better than other races. What good results? And does it outweigh the positive ideals of a "color blind" society? I'd say no.


Well, that's normal. And while a "color blind" society is a fine ideal, it is for the moment too distant from reality to seriously consider. The fact is that white people (among others, but they are the more powerful race) are not color blind, and for one white person to tout the values of color blindness while a minority community struggles to get a foothold is naive at best. You see, even if your values about racial relations are fair and just, despite your admission that even you fail to live up to them at times, it still becomes a double standard to impose that value on a minority group, given the reality that even if they could live up to it, a segment of the white population probably even larger than their own could or would not.

Beyond that, the fact is that it's easy to devote time and energy to developing egalitarianism within one's self when you aren't struggling to pay for food, housing, clothing, etc. I mean here we are, but as it stands, minorities don't even have equitable internet access.

Ultimately it becomes a simple issue of equality. Minorities are not equal, and until they are, any legal practice that promotes that equity is, at least theoretically, justified. The ends justify the means, conditionally. And while "certain" people fret that those means will continue even when the condition is satisfied, at this point that's still such a pipe dream that if you're worrying about it, you either suck at prioritizing or you're far too well off to be complaining. Across many domains, the gap is actually widening more than narrowing.

Quote:
I can't say that I agree with that statement at all.


It's certainly not always true, and I believe I noted earlier in the thread that there were many aspects of the culture that they tend to be unfamiliar with. However, it's at least easy to turn on the TV and feel like you're getting an education about white people.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#227 Mar 02 2011 at 2:02 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Kachi wrote:
I thought it was clear from the context that I was speaking in general.


It was to an extent, but at the same time, I partially disliked the generality of "black people are poor" as opposed to "there are more successful white entrepreneurs than black entrepreneurs".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#228 Mar 02 2011 at 2:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I thought it was clear from the context that I was speaking in general.


It was to an extent, but at the same time, I partially disliked the generality of "black people are poor" as opposed to "there are more successful white entrepreneurs than black entrepreneurs".


I think my posts are long enough without extraneous modifiers.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#229 Mar 02 2011 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Kachi wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I thought it was clear from the context that I was speaking in general.


It was to an extent, but at the same time, I partially disliked the generality of "black people are poor" as opposed to "there are more successful white entrepreneurs than black entrepreneurs".


I think my posts are long enough without extraneous modifiers.


That may be true, but generalities only work if that's true for most of the time. For example, I said that your friends and family are generally your race. This is true for just about every person that I've met. On the other hand, "black people are poor" isn't even close to true for the black people that I've met. So, at that time, I simply wanted to know how you came up with that conclusion.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#230 Mar 02 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I said that black people are poorER. Naturally that is making a general comparison to white people. Obviously not all black people are poorer than all white people.

I was just thinking that I should stop using so many modifiers because they vastly extend the length of my already-long posts, but apparently they are necessary to avoid confusion. Realize that although I often attempt to speak with strict technical accuracy, I sometimes assume the reader can accurately glean my intent.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#231 Mar 02 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
What a sh*tty 8k.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#232 Mar 02 2011 at 3:54 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Kachi wrote:
What a sh*tty 8k.


Speaking in generalities, it was bound to be. Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#233 Mar 02 2011 at 4:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Kachi wrote:
It's pretty simple: black people patronizing black businesses keep money in the black community, which is a concern when the black community needs money and white people have no real vested interest in supporting black businesses, and in fact are prone to prefer white businesses if for no reason other than personal comfort and market demographic targeting.


But isn't that perpetuated by black businesses focusing on "black products" (like the list Alma provided)? I still say that this is self-destructive in the long run. Inclusion is better than exclusion in this situation.

Quote:
Someone today was complaining to me about how our university offers as many minority-based scholarships as merit-based scholarships, while she can barely afford her education despite working full time (even though she will likely qualify); however, she went to the best school in her area (a very expensive private school) and her father is helping her with her loans, an advantage I can assure you few minorities are privy to regardless of their merit otherwise.


Very few? But some do, right? So why not just tie things like scholarships to financial need and ignore skin color? That way, as the relative socio-economic conditions of various groups change over time, the same set of rules will continue to work perfectly.

What I'm asking is why we should make note of the skin color of a person in need. Why not just make note of their need?

Quote:
Exactly. There is nothing inherently racist about using labels like white and black, and even generalizing them to wider cultural norms in certain cases.


You're right. There isn't. However, as soon as we start tying other actions and choices to those labels, then we do get ourselves into the realm of racism. Saying "that guy is black" is not racism. Saying "I'm not going to buy stuff at that guys store because he's black" sorta is. Isn't it? I'll ask again that you ignore the whole "superiority angle" to racism because I think that's only a subset of the whole of negative racially biased decisions out there. Regardless of what you label the action, isn't it wrong to base actions on people's skin color?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#234 Mar 02 2011 at 4:18 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Kachi wrote:
I said that black people are poorER. Naturally that is making a general comparison to white people. Obviously not all black people are poorer than all white people.

I was just thinking that I should stop using so many modifiers because they vastly extend the length of my already-long posts, but apparently they are necessary to avoid confusion. Realize that although I often attempt to speak with strict technical accuracy, I sometimes assume the reader can accurately glean my intent.


Even with the statement of "poorer" that hasn't been the case for me either. I'm not saying that you are wrong or anything, I was just curious on your frame of thought.

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 12:18am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#235 Mar 02 2011 at 4:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Kachi wrote:
Realize that although I often attempt to speak with strict technical accuracy, I sometimes assume the reader can accurately glean my intent.


That's an iffy proposition on this board sometimes. I honestly believe that some people go out of their way to find ways to misinterpret other posters words in order to make their arguments even when the meaning should have been abundantly clear.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#236 Mar 02 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
I honestly believe that some people go out of their way to find ways to misinterpret other posters words in order to make their arguments even when the meaning should have been abundantly clear.
lol
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#237 Mar 02 2011 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
But isn't that perpetuated by black businesses focusing on "black products" (like the list Alma provided)? I still say that this is self-destructive in the long run. Inclusion is better than exclusion in this situation.


Except what you're failing to understand is that this isn't black people saying "Hey! Lets make products for Black people!!!", it's "Hey, how come there aren't any hair products that black people use?" As a result, black entrepreneurs go in the business of making hair products used by black people, else they wouldn't exist because the average white person probably has no clue what a do-rag is for.

You're getting caught up in labels.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#238 Mar 02 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Good
Having followed this thread:

I was interpreting Alma's "shopping list" in the following manner:



"I can buy all these products at any major/minor supermarts...but if I pay a little more at the local (neighborhood) supplier rather than Wal-Mart, etc. then I am helping the local (ethnic) retailer and thus "helping my own".



Have I missed the mark, Alma, or is this what you meant?
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#239 Mar 02 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Having followed this thread:

I was interpreting Alma's "shopping list" in the following manner:



"I can buy all these products at any major/minor supermarts...but if I pay a little more at the local (neighborhood) supplier rather than Wal-Mart, etc. then I am helping the local (ethnic) retailer and thus "helping my own".



Have I missed the mark, Alma, or is this what you meant?


Yes, you missed the mark, but not by much. It's two-fold, local and national.

The national argument is that those things wouldn't even be in wal-mart if a black person didn't say "hey, lets make products x,y and z", and if no one buys those things, they will go away. Therefore, as a black person who uses products x,y and z, then they should support them.

The local argument is that if you don't support your local neighborhood(regardless of race, but usually the same race), then you're not helping your own. If you're in a predominately black neighborhood, that just so happens to be of low income, and you take all of your business and work to the nearest community, regardless of race, then you're not helping out your own community.

That was the biggest argument for getting the lottery in TN. People were against the idea of "gambling", but realized that people were just going to Mississippi to gamble on the weekends. As a result, those areas were benefiting from the money earned from Tennesseans , but if the lottery were local, then people would keep their money in the community.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#240 Mar 02 2011 at 6:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The national argument is that those things wouldn't even be in wal-mart if a black person didn't say "hey, lets make products x,y and z", and if no one buys those things, they will go away. Therefore, as a black person who uses products x,y and z, then they should support them.


Sure. No one is debating the value of filling a market void if no one else is providing a product a group of people want to buy. The question is whether or not you believe it's helpful for the members of said group to continue "helping" their own group by buying those products from members of their own group even after said products are available elsewhere.

At some point, doesn't the practice become harmful and just racial discrimination?

Quote:
The local argument is that if you don't support your local neighborhood(regardless of race, but usually the same race), then you're not helping your own. If you're in a predominately black neighborhood, that just so happens to be of low income, and you take all of your business and work to the nearest community, regardless of race, then you're not helping out your own community.


Yes. But in the example Bijou gave, the consumers are paying more money for the same product in order to "help out" black businesses. So every gain by the black business is made up from a loss by the consumers of the same community. While you can certainly argue that this keeps the money in the community, I argue that it also insulates them and prevents money from outside from flowing in. The net effect is a perpetuation of the poverty conditions within the community itself.


Let me see if I can present a clear explanation of what I'm talking about. And remember that "helping out" doesn't just have to be about economics, but the same principle applies to many areas of society. One of the factors we talk about in the context of race relations isn't just money distribution but also "power". Specifically political power. If you look across our political demographics and compare it to the racial demographics, you find that there is a significant and noticeable lean in favor of white politicians. In other words, minorities don't have the same representation in our government at most levels as they exist demographically within the population.

This discrepancy is often explained as some kind of holdover of "white power", but I believe it's an aspect of the harm caused by minorities following the "help your own kind" mentality that you have said is good for them. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but what ends out happening is that minority groups block themselves demographically. The simplistic example would be if we assumed a population made up of 20% black, 20% latino, 20% asian, and 40% white. You'd expect that representation should more or less follow that distribution, but what typically happens is more like 80% white, 10% asian, 5% black, and 5% latino.

The reason is because each of those groups is voting for their own group and not for any other. Thus, in a field in which one candidate of each group is running, the white guy will get 40% of the votes and win. Even if we assume a run off is required since he didn't get a majority of the votes, if the white guy is running against any black, asian, or latino candidate, and each person will prefer to vote for his own group, the white guy will tend to win, since the asian and latino voters are no more likely to vote for a black candidate than a white one.

And in fact, they are more likely to (usually). As I explained earlier, white people have shown a strong movement within their own population of *not* judging and selecting based on skin color. Thus, if you are a member of a minority who has adopted the "help your own kind" belief, and you're presented with a choice between a candidate of another minority which has also adopted that same belief, and a white candidate which most likely hasn't, who are you going to vote for? The black voters aren't going to vote for the asian or latino candidate because they'll believe that those candidates will favor their own group over them. Same deal with the other minority groups.


The same applies to the business model. If the black business appeals to black customers, and black customers prefer to shop there to "help their own group", but the latino's and asians are also doing the same thing, they are going to tend to *not* shop at eachothers stores. But the white owned Wal Mart, which carries products designed to appeal to all groups and not just white people will get *some* of the business from all of those groups.

Do you see how such an approach to race is harmful to the minorities themselves? They aren't helping themselves. They are hurting themselves. If the minority store owner instead provided products designed to appeal to all groups, and members of each minority gave up the idea that they should shop only at their "own stores", you'd find that the money flow would be much more equitable and the prospects for minority communities would improve over time. By closing themselves off, they're making any growth nearly impossible.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 4:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#241 Mar 02 2011 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji,

I'm still waiting on you to justify your claim that there is a connection between supporting your own race and civil rights/slavery.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#242 Mar 02 2011 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

I'm still waiting on you to justify your claim that there is a connection between supporting your own race and civil rights/slavery.


Sigh. Broken record much? You don't think so? You don't think that white people made slaves out of black people because they believed it benefited their own race to do so? You don't think that if white people as a whole believed that they should act to benefit their own race even at the detriment of others, that this wouldn't have hindered that whole civil rights movement thing?

I think that's a pretty ridiculous position to take, but you're welcome to it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#243 Mar 02 2011 at 7:27 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji,

I'm still waiting on you to justify your claim that there is a connection between supporting your own race and civil rights/slavery.


Sigh. Broken record much? You don't think so? You don't think that white people made slaves out of black people because they believed it benefited their own race to do so? You don't think that if white people as a whole believed that they should act to benefit their own race even at the detriment of others, that this wouldn't have hindered that whole civil rights movement thing?

I think that's a pretty ridiculous position to take, but you're welcome to it.


I believe that white people did what they did because they were racist bigots full of hatred. To think other wise is supporting the idea that white people now in power secretly wants to re-establish slavery and take away rights of others.

Regardless if white people thought enslaving others benefited them, you are overlooking the factor of hatred. Just because I have a gun and desire power doesn't mean I will use my gun to kill people. Humanity does not fall under personal desires and goals. Either you believe in humanity or you don't. It has nothing to do with your economical goals.

So, if you're unable to make that connection, then I guess it's safe to say that your claim that black people will somehow reinstate slavery is invalid.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#244 Mar 02 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Kachi wrote:
What a sh*tty 8k.


Speaking in generalities, it was bound to be. Smiley: tongue


That was too harsh :c

Quote:

But isn't that perpetuated by black businesses focusing on "black products" (like the list Alma provided)? I still say that this is self-destructive in the long run. Inclusion is better than exclusion in this situation.


Well the solution is to force white businesses to provide those products and services, I guess. But that's part of the complaint, isn't it?

Quote:
Very few? But some do, right? So why not just tie things like scholarships to financial need and ignore skin color? That way, as the relative socio-economic conditions of various groups change over time, the same set of rules will continue to work perfectly.

What I'm asking is why we should make note of the skin color of a person in need. Why not just make note of their need?


It's a pretty safe bet without doing so, honestly. Schools also offer minority scholarships to increase diversity, which is important to student body outcomes. Besides that, determining need is very difficult. Schools and the federal government ALREADY do that based on immediate family income via FAFSA and Pell grants, but SES is based on a lot more than your immediate family's income, like their education and social capital, among other measures which are impossible to check for but are decidedly disadvantaged in minority groups.

Quote:
You're right. There isn't. However, as soon as we start tying other actions and choices to those labels, then we do get ourselves into the realm of racism. Saying "that guy is black" is not racism. Saying "I'm not going to buy stuff at that guys store because he's black" sorta is. Isn't it? I'll ask again that you ignore the whole "superiority angle" to racism because I think that's only a subset of the whole of negative racially biased decisions out there. Regardless of what you label the action, isn't it wrong to base actions on people's skin color?


No. It's basically only wrong if you're deliberately (or arguably ignorantly) acting differently with intent to do harm based on that.

It's somewhat analogous to protecting endangered species but not other species.

Quote:
At some point, doesn't the practice become harmful and just racial discrimination?


Not anytime even remotely soon.

Rest was tl;dr, so I'm thankful you weren't talking to me.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#245 Mar 02 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I believe that white people did what they did because they were racist bigots full of hatred. To think other wise is supporting the idea that white people now in power secretly wants to re-establish slavery and take away rights of others.


And you can't even open your mind to the possibility that for most of human history, groups of people have oppressed, killed, and enslaved other "foreign" groups of people, primarily out of a need/desire to ensure that their own group lived the best life possible in a world where there is rarely enough for everyone? You can't accept the possibility that racial hatred and bigotry arose as a result of that (a justification if you will) and might not actually be the cause?

Can you consider the possibility that what happened was that as western culture evolved, a growing philosophical belief in the innate value of man arose, and that this in turn caused those in power to gradually question the use of such power to continue to oppress, kill, and enslave those different than them? Can you further consider that it was this realization and change among that group (white people in the case of the US) that lead to the elimination of slavery, the gradual abolishment of unfair discriminatory laws, and eventually to the civil rights movement?

Doesn't that make more sense than insisting that white people were just bigoted and hateful and then something magical happened and made them stop?

Quote:
Regardless if white people thought enslaving others benefited them, you are overlooking the factor of hatred. Just because I have a gun and desire power doesn't mean I will use my gun to kill people. Humanity does not fall under personal desires and goals. Either you believe in humanity or you don't. It has nothing to do with your economical goals.


I'm confused by your statements. They appear contradictory. On the one hand you insist that all of these things happened because of hatred and not because those at the time felt it was necessary to gain the greatest benefit for themselves and their own "group", but then you talk about humanity as though it has some innate goodness. I guess it just makes no sense that you are willing to blame things like slavery and Jim Crow on simple bigotry, but then deny the idea that someone might do harm to another person because it benefits them to do so.


And I'll address your hypothetical scenario: If you have a gun and desire power, and the only way to gain that power is to use the gun to kill people, you will kill people. Or you will give up your desire for power. I'm not sure why you thought that was a great counter argument. In fact, I think it's reasonably safe to say that the vast majority of wars and killing happen out of a competition for resources. We invent reasons to hate each other in order to do justify those things, but ultimately we fight and oppress and enslave because it benefits us to do so.


That's why I find it incredibly dangerous and harmful to be so accepting of the notion that it's perfectly ok for groups of people to align themselves upon racial lines and deliberately choose to help out their own group because of those racial differences. I just think that's thinking that flies in the face of 5 or 6 hundred years of intellectual thought and social advancement.

Quote:
So, if you're unable to make that connection, then I guess it's safe to say that your claim that black people will somehow reinstate slavery is invalid.


I didn't say they would re-instate slavery. That's a strawman. I said that they would continue to use the legal benefits they are being given even after the socio-economic scales have been balanced and the reasons those benefits were enacted no longer exist. How much so, and what form that takes is completely unknown. I'm simply saying that unless the very attitude you seem to think is perfectly acceptable is rejected by those groups, this *will* happen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#246 Mar 02 2011 at 8:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:

But isn't that perpetuated by black businesses focusing on "black products" (like the list Alma provided)? I still say that this is self-destructive in the long run. Inclusion is better than exclusion in this situation.


Well the solution is to force white businesses to provide those products and services, I guess. But that's part of the complaint, isn't it?


But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.

Quote:
It's a pretty safe bet without doing so, honestly. Schools also offer minority scholarships to increase diversity, which is important to student body outcomes. Besides that, determining need is very difficult. Schools and the federal government ALREADY do that based on immediate family income via FAFSA and Pell grants, but SES is based on a lot more than your immediate family's income, like their education and social capital, among other measures which are impossible to check for but are decidedly disadvantaged in minority groups.


But what do they use to measure "education and social capital"? And if they are "impossible to check for, but are decidedly disadvantaged in minority groups", how do we check to see if they still exist? How do we know when the pendulum has shifted?


That was my original point. If our criteria is (for example) "Black==disadvantaged", and we create laws and systems to account for that disadvantage, what process is in place to uncreate those things later? If it's so hard to determine need, and so hard to determine the exact nature of that disadvantage, then don't we run the risk of embarking upon social policy based on pure assumption and an accumulation of beliefs? Do you think that successive generations will be less certain that black kids need more help going to school that this one? Because the numbers would seem to suggest otherwise, right? I mean, we'd assume that we should be seeing improvement with each generation from slavery to civil rights to today, yet the use of entitlements and benefits aimed towards minorities has increased over time, not decreased.

Why should we assume that trend will reverse itself? I would absolutely love to be wrong about this. I'd love for the future to reveal that as each of these minority groups gained socio-economic position that their political leaders and representatives would drop the issue of benefits for their group, and allow those benefits to be phased out over time out of a recognition that they don't need it anymore. But I don't see that. Certainly, so far it looks as though the more power these groups gain, the more they use it to "educate" everyone about the plight of their group and push for yet more benefits for their group.

Show me evidence to the contrary. Show me where the NAACP has decided that black participation in some area of society has improved sufficiently that government intervention on their behalf is no longer necessary. Like I said, I would love to be wrong about this. I just see no indication that the current trend wont just continue.

Quote:
No. It's basically only wrong if you're deliberately (or arguably ignorantly) acting differently with intent to do harm based on that.


But what is "harm"? If you choose to buy something at a store because the owner has the same skin color as you, aren't you harming the owner of the store you might otherwise have purchased that item from? It's just strange to me that things like differences in hiring rates and pay, with no definitive motive behind them are fairly universally assumed to be proof of "institutional racism" by whites against blacks, but a black person deliberately choosing to financially benefit a black person in preference to a white person isn't?

Why are those different? We condemn the former and embark on massive social agendas to correct for those discrepancies, even in the absence of clearly stated racial motives. But a black person choosing to buy from a black owned store is no different in terms of harm than a white person choosing to employ a white person. Both are the same thing, right? In both cases, you're "helping out" a member of your own racial group in preference to a member of a different group.


The difference though is that some in our society are so twisted around on this issue, that they condemn one and praise the other. As Alma has done.

They're wrong in both cases. If it's wrong for a white employer to prefer to hire white people and tend to pay white people more than black, then it is equally wrong for a black person to prefer to buy from a black owned store. There is no difference. Regardless of what label you use for it (racism, racial discrimination, bigotry, whatever), those are both equally wrong. What astounds me is just how many people don't see that they are.

Edited, Mar 2nd 2011 7:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#247 Mar 02 2011 at 10:28 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:

But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.


Or it keeps money in the communities that don't have as much of it, which is kind of the point. Your point might hold relevance if minorities weren't more segregated today than they were in the 70's, but these days your race is very likely your community, and keeping money within your community is something white people would probably happily do if they could easily figure out which white people were in their community and which weren't. It's not very effective when you're vastly the majority.

Quote:

But what do they use to measure "education and social capital"? And if they are "impossible to check for, but are decidedly disadvantaged in minority groups", how do we check to see if they still exist? How do we know when the pendulum has shifted?


Research bureaus that get large government grants are able to collect that data in -samples- to do statistical analysis and report on general trends. Schools do not have the resources to actually collect that data on individuals.

Quote:
But what is "harm"? If you choose to buy something at a store because the owner has the same skin color as you, aren't you harming the owner of the store you might otherwise have purchased that item from? It's just strange to me that things like differences in hiring rates and pay, with no definitive motive behind them are fairly universally assumed to be proof of "institutional racism" by whites against blacks, but a black person deliberately choosing to financially benefit a black person in preference to a white person isn't?


If it weren't for institutional and systemic racism, again, you might have a point. But attempting to offset one with the other is the difference. However, for a white person to do it intentionally is to attempt to offset the offset.

It's all an effort to make things more fair and equitable-- to establish a more even footing. We can't just say, "Ok, equal starting now!" which was the initial idea of the civil rights movement, and magically everything is ok.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#248 Mar 03 2011 at 6:03 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
And you can't even open your mind to the possibility that for most of human history, groups of people have oppressed, killed, and enslaved other "foreign" groups of people, primarily out of a need/desire to ensure that their own group lived the best life possible in a world where there is rarely enough for everyone? You can't accept the possibility that racial hatred and bigotry arose as a result of that (a justification if you will) and might not actually be the cause?

Can you consider the possibility that what happened was that as western culture evolved, a growing philosophical belief in the innate value of man arose, and that this in turn caused those in power to gradually question the use of such power to continue to oppress, kill, and enslave those different than them? Can you further consider that it was this realization and change among that group (white people in the case of the US) that lead to the elimination of slavery, the gradual abolishment of unfair discriminatory laws, and eventually to the civil rights movement?

Doesn't that make more sense than insisting that white people were just bigoted and hateful and then something magical happened and made them stop?


If you honestly believe that white people didn't know that what they were doing were "wrong", then you have serious issues my friend.

As I said before, the Golden Rule is universal. Everyone naturally knew what they had done was wrong, else they would have included family, friends and themselves. You bringing up global slavery just proves my point. If you look in history, even though other countries had slaves and servants, they had MORE rights than the U.S slaves. This supports the claim that there is NO connection between civil rights and economical power. These people CHOSE to restrict social liberties.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm confused by your statements. They appear contradictory. On the one hand you insist that all of these things happened because of hatred and not because those at the time felt it was necessary to gain the greatest benefit for themselves and their own "group", but then you talk about humanity as though it has some innate goodness. I guess it just makes no sense that you are willing to blame things like slavery and Jim Crow on simple bigotry, but then deny the idea that someone might do harm to another person because it benefits them to do so.



You're actually confusing me. It's simple.. No matter what your intent was, only hatred, ignorance, evilness, bigotry, etc. would cause a person to use slavery as a means to get to the top. It's a very simple concept. It's not that hard to grasp.

Gbaji wrote:

And I'll address your hypothetical scenario: If you have a gun and desire power, and the only way to gain that power is to use the gun to kill people, you will kill people. Or you will give up your desire for power. I'm not sure why you thought that was a great counter argument.


Because, obviously using a gun to kill people is never the ONLY way to gain power. You can, I don't know, build trust with people by doing good and become a good leader to gain power.

If you chose to kill as opposed to building positive relationships, then that's a direct reflect on your personality. That's why that was a great example.

Gbaji wrote:
That's why I find it incredibly dangerous and harmful to be so accepting of the notion that it's perfectly ok for groups of people to align themselves upon racial lines and deliberately choose to help out their own group because of those racial differences. I just think that's thinking that flies in the face of 5 or 6 hundred years of intellectual thought and social advancement.


You're only saying that because you obviously never been a minority in any meaningful situation. Go live in a foreign country for a year where people don't look like you or speak a language that you speak, has a complete different culture and tell me if you still think the same.

That's why I asked if China Towns, Little Tokyos and Asian supermarkets equally offend you?

Gnaji wrote:
I didn't say they would re-instate slavery. That's a strawman. I said that they would continue to use the legal benefits they are being given even after the socio-economic scales have been balanced and the reasons those benefits were enacted no longer exist. How much so, and what form that takes is completely unknown. I'm simply saying that unless the very attitude you seem to think is perfectly acceptable is rejected by those groups, this *will* happen.


Besides the fact that we'll never get to that point, if it did, then the new minority, "white people" will have the same "legal benefits" that the former minority had. Exactly what "legal benefits" are you talking about anyway?

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 9:07pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#249 Mar 03 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.


I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.

So, basically, you don't disagree with me at all...

That's nice to know
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#250 Mar 03 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
******
30,635 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But Alma's argument suggests that even if a white business carries those products and services, minority members should stick to buying from their own racial group. That's the part I don't agree with. I think it just perpetuates racial divides.


I've stated numerous times in reference to the community, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. You're helping the people who help you.


This whole argument sort of reminds me of all of the "Buy American" campaigns...

Edited, Mar 3rd 2011 9:38am by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#251 Mar 03 2011 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Black people think OJ was innocent...?

Also, I enjoy a number of "all black cast" movies. I really want to see "Colored Girls," I think that looks really good. I don't like the Medea movies, though. I loved "Waiting to Exhale" and "Set it Off."

I also loved The Fresh Price of Bel Air, but I don't know if you'd count that...



Let's not forget "Soul Food". Love that movie.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
Aethien, Elinda, ElneClare, lolgaxe, Spoonless, Anonymous Guests (41)