Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?

BCP1928 · May 19, 2024

ImaginaryFiction said:
Well for one, everyone has been a slave to someone else at some point. This notion slavery only involves white people in America is ridiculous.

In Barbary the blacks owned more white slaves than America ever owned of black slaves

BBC - History - British History in depth: British Slaves on the Barbary Coast

Their untold story, by Professor Rees Davies

www.bbc.co.uk

What about native Americans that owned slaves?

How Native American Slaveholders Complicate the Trail of Tears Narrative

The new exhibition 'Americans' at the National Museum of the American Indian prompts a deeper dive for historic truths

www.smithsonianmag.com

We all know Jews were slaves.

What about the blacks in America that enslaved blacks?

Blacks Owning Blacks: The Story of William Ellison – Cathedral of Liberty

William Ellison Jr. (c. April 1790 – December 5, 1861), born April Ellison, was a U.S. cotton gin maker and blacksmith in South Carolina, and former African-American slave who achieved considerable success as a slaveowner before the American Civil War.

cthl.org

And of course who sold black slaves? Other blacks that enslaved their own people to sell.

But at the end of the day it doesn't matter to you or me, we didn't own any slaves. Why should we be held accountable for something that happened a 100 years before we were born?

Let's say I found out I had an ancestor that was a Nazi child murder and rapist, killed animals and raped women. Ok, that has nothing to do with who I am as a person now. I don't do those things, I pay my taxes, work hard, love my wife and try to be a decent person.

So no one alive today in America has ever been a slave, and no one alive today has ever owned a slave.

And you think only conservatives understand these things and take them into account?

timothyu · May 19, 2024

Bradskii said:
Because...it's instinctive. A gut reaction.

Exactly the same reaction that causes Christians on the wide path to lash out at Christians on the narrow path for saying their religion has had it backwards for 1700 years. Whatever makes people comfortable is what they will defend, right or wrong. It is instinctive to protect oneself.

RDKirk · May 19, 2024

Bradskii said:
Exactly right. But the instinct that somebody belongs to an 'outgroup' is not in itself rational. Because...it's instinctive. A gut reaction. A response based on millions of years of evolution telling you 'Hey, it might be beneficial in the first instance to treat this person as a threat. Just in case'. Just like it's best to jump back if something rustles in the grass. It's probably a mouse, but it could be a snake. The second level response is to rationally consider that initial reaction and act accordingly.

Your response was a non sequitur to my post. I said "A" and your response was all about "B."

rjs330 · May 19, 2024

BCP1928 said:
1. By not doing it ourselves
2. By encouraging others not to do it.
3. By using tactics of encouragement that resist being categorized as "cultural Marxism" or whatever the conservative boogyman of the day is.

We've been doing that for many years now. You ask most people and they will tell you they are racist. Only the tiniest amount of people are racist or encourage racism. Probably in the range of 95-98% of people are not racist and encourage people not to be. They would reject racism in their lives.

What exactly are Tactics of Encouragement that you are referring to?

rjs330 · May 19, 2024

BCP1928 said:
And you think only conservatives understand these things and take them into account?

It sure seems like it when the left makes it sound like white people are all to blame. And the real question is what to do about it. And you still haven't offered any real solutions that we dont already do. Yet blame continues. I want to know what needs to be done NOW about it. Not who's to blame for it, because EVERY race in history is to blame.

What do we DO about it NOW.

timothyu · May 19, 2024

rjs330 said:
What do we DO about it NOW.

How about for a start, stop using it as an excuse to get something

BCP1928 · May 19, 2024

rjs330 said:
We've been doing that for many years now. You ask most people and they will tell you they are racist. Only the tiniest amount of people are racist or encourage racism. Probably in the range of 95-98% of people are not racist and encourage people not to be. They would reject racism in their lives.

What exactly are Tactics of Encouragement that you are referring to?

How one goes about trying to persuade people that there is such a thing as systemic racism without having them resent it.

Bradskii · May 19, 2024

RDKirk said:
Your response was a non sequitur to my post. I said "A" and your response was all about "B."

The first sentence was an agreement with what you said. As was the last. The bit in the middle was a further explanation of the initial reaction we generally have. In effect giving the reason why I was agreeing with you.

Bradskii · May 19, 2024

BCP1928 said:
How one goes about trying to persuade people that there is such a thing as systemic racism without having them resent it.

By explaining that it's an inbuilt instinctive behaviour for which we bear no responsibility but an instinct which is extremely easy to overcome.

timothyu · May 19, 2024

Perhaps an EMP designed to all at once wipe out all pre-conceived notions in all people's minds so the world can make a fresh start would be the answer, be is secular or religious. But we need realize that this is not the final product and school is for learning how backwards we really are.

RDKirk · May 19, 2024

Bradskii said:
By explaining that it's an inbuilt instinctive behaviour for which we bear no responsibility but an instinct which is extremely easy to overcome.

The concept of "in group" and "out group" is learned so early that it can be practically considered instinctive. However, the characteristics of what a child learns are "in group" and "out group" are controlled by the group. It might be skin color...it might be language...it might be religion...it might be nationality (which is itself made up of many characteristics than skin color).

Bradskii · May 19, 2024

RDKirk said:
The concept of "in group" and "out group" is learned so early that it can be practically considered instinctive. However, the characteristics of what a child learns are "in group" and "out group" are controlled by the group. It might be skin color...it might be language...it might be religion...it might be nationality (which is itself made up of many characteristics than skin color).

I agree again. You may be in a gang of people that are all black but someone black from another gang will be considered someone from an out group. Ethic differences are more obvious.

There was a fascinating experiment done in Boston a few years ago. The experimenters got a couple of Spanish people to travel on a commuter train with no instructions other than to carry on as normal. So they naturally chatted in Spanish during the trip. The rest of the commuters were mainly white and upper income types. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire prior to the two week experiment and one following it. And their attitudes to Mexican immigration had changed over that period. For the worse. An example of unconscious us v them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-and-changed-commuters-views-of-immigration/

rjs330 · May 19, 2024

BCP1928 said:
How one goes about trying to persuade people that there is such a thing as systemic racism without having them resent it.

How does one do that. Apparently that's not working because people don't believe it. Not anymore. No one thinks they are racist by and large. Rhats why they resent it. And unfortunately those that do think there is systemic racism hasn't been able to convince enough people. Like I said, what do you want to actually do? Keep talking about it or what things must change and how would you go about changing them. Cause you might go on talking for the next 100 years.

RDKirk · May 19, 2024

rjs330 said:
How does one do that. Apparently that's not working because people don't believe it. Not anymore. No one thinks they are racist by and large. Rhats why they resent it. And unfortunately those that do think there is systemic racism hasn't been able to convince enough people. Like I said, what do you want to actually do? Keep talking about it or what things must change and how would you go about changing them. Cause you might go on talking for the next 100 years.

The question to ponder is: What changed in the early 2000s?

rjs330 · May 19, 2024

Bradskii said:
I agree again. You may be in a gang of people that are all black but someone black from another gang will be considered someone from an out group. Ethic differences are more obvious.

There was a fascinating experiment done in Boston a few years ago. The experimenters got a couple of Spanish people to travel on a commuter train with no instructions other than to carry on as normal. So they naturally chatted in Spanish during the trip. The rest of the commuters were mainly white and upper income types. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire prior to the two week experiment and one following it. And their attitudes to Mexican immigration had changed over that period. For the worse. An example of unconscious us v them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-and-changed-commuters-views-of-immigration/

I wonder why they didn't do that in an African American neighborhood. I wonder what the results would have been.

rjs330 · May 19, 2024

Lots of philosophical discussion. Still no answers. For example, rhe train experiment seemed to indicate people got more comfortable around the Hispanics the more time around them there was. Is that true of every race? Should we do experiments in China Town. Put African Americans among the predominantly Chinese neighborhoods. Or the Hispanics in predominantly African American neighborhoods. Or African Ameticans is predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods. What would happen there?

Would everyone's attitudes show? How would it be different or would it be the same?

Now THATS real research.

rjs330 · May 19, 2024

RDKirk said:
The question to ponder is: What changed in the early 2000s?

What do you think changed. I'd be I
Interested in hearing.

RDKirk · May 20, 2024

Bradskii said:
I agree again. You may be in a gang of people that are all black but someone black from another gang will be considered someone from an out group. Ethic differences are more obvious.

There was a fascinating experiment done in Boston a few years ago. The experimenters got a couple of Spanish people to travel on a commuter train with no instructions other than to carry on as normal. So they naturally chatted in Spanish during the trip. The rest of the commuters were mainly white and upper income types. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire prior to the two week experiment and one following it. And their attitudes to Mexican immigration had changed over that period. For the worse. An example of unconscious us v them. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...n-and-changed-commuters-views-of-immigration/

Any place to read about the study without having to subscribe to the Washington Post?

However, from scant amount of information you provided...nothing fascinating about that at all, if the point is to prove something about "in groups" and "out groups."

You say, for instance, that the commuters were mainly "upper income types." So, were those Spanish-speaking people even dressed similarly to represent "upper income types?"

RDKirk · May 20, 2024

rjs330 said:
What do you think changed. I'd be I
Interested in hearing.

As I frequently say, "There is always more than one thing happening."

The "Great Recession" happened early in the century, setting Millennials back economically, with the artificially induced Covid Depression occurring before Millennials had recovered and just as Gen Z was entering college.

Social media exploded with smart phones, and most negatively, "clout chasing" began.

Critical Theory in various forms, which had been ruminating through the education system since the 80s, started to have its negative effects in the workplace.

The effects of three generations of Radical Feminism in the black urban areas reached peak, with more than 70% of black children born to unwed mothers whose mothers and grandmothers had been mostly unwed.

Bradskii · May 20, 2024

RDKirk said:
Any place to read about the study without having to subscribe to the Washington Post?

However, from scant amount of information you provided...nothing fascinating about that at all, if the point is to prove something about "in groups" and "out groups."

You say, for instance, that the commuters were mainly "upper income types." So, were those Spanish-speaking people even dressed similarly to represent "upper income types?"

I found the paper from which the article was written: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1317670111#supplementary-materials.

I'd assume that the Spanish speaking people were casually dressed.

Systemic racism in the USA: Are whites "guiltier" if they had slavery in their past?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I have become comfortably numb.

I have become comfortably numb.

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

I have become comfortably numb.

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

I have become comfortably numb.

Similar threads