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
*****
16,781 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:
I lost my post
#203 Mar 01 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
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
#204 Mar 01 2011 at 2:38 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 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
#205 Mar 01 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
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.
#206 Mar 01 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 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:
I lost my post
#207 Mar 01 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 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
#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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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.
#210 Mar 01 2011 at 5:59 PM Rating: Decent
****
4,158 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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?
#212 Mar 01 2011 at 9:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 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
****
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.
#214 Mar 01 2011 at 9:54 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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.
#215 Mar 01 2011 at 9:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 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
******
35,568 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
****
4,158 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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.
#219 Mar 01 2011 at 10:26 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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.

#220 Mar 01 2011 at 10:31 PM Rating: Decent
****
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
****
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.
#222 Mar 01 2011 at 11:43 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 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
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 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
#224 Mar 02 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
****
6,471 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
#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
****
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.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 283 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (283)