Third Wave Anti-racism

Ana the Ist · Jun 17, 2019

dzheremi said:
I know he's a pariah now due to the #MeToo stuff and his well-publicized sexual behaviors, but whenever anyone goes down that "that was so yesterday" route, I can't help but think of the bit by Louie CK where he says every few years or so white people add another hundred years onto how long its been since slavery existed in America. He says something like "Basically, it was 140 ago when you could own a person. That's two 70 year old ladies living back to back!"

He may be a pervert, but he's right. We're quick to forget if it didn't affect us personally (i.e., if we're not black) so that it seems like a long time ago, and of course Americans are famously stereotyped by Europeans and others as people who think 100 year old buildings, statutes, etc. are old (I think the joke is something like "Americans think 100 years was a long time ago, while Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance", referring to the occasional European tourist who assumes that they can land in NYC and visit San Francisco on the same day, because there are actually parts of Europe where you can visit multiple countries in one day). So 140 years seems like forever ago.

But then I remember how my grandfather was born on a farm in Illinois in 1911, the same year of the lynching of mother and son Laura and J.D. Nelson in Oklahoma. Statistics collected on the phenomenon of lynching (which mostly, but not totally, affected black people; 70%+ of all lynching victims were black) by the Tuskegee Institute end in 1968, indicating that the phenomenon went on -- however rarely -- until the late 1960s (though as you can read at the link, there are incidents even after that). 1968 was the year my own mother graduated from high school. That was yesterday, for all intents and purposes.

None of this is to say that I agree with all the premises involved in modern 'woke' tribalism (I think I made that clear in my other post), but let's not pretend that this is ancient history and couldn't possibly affect people today. If you ever meet an Armenian person, chances are they have a very similar family story about a relative or maybe even multiple relatives lost during the genocides in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire (1915-1918), which were much more recent but also not within the lifetimes of probably about 99% of people living today (my grandfather is my oldest living relative, and he was born in 1921; the 1911 grandfather died years ago, when I was around 20). Yet I don't think anyone would deny that those genocides could and do have an effect on the modern Armenian community as a whole. So why should modern black Americans or others be any different? Sure it was a little bit longer ago, but not so much as to not have histories past down, and pain with them.

I suppose you could say "Well then why not let go of the pain so that you can move forward", but not being black myself I don't think it's my place to tell other people to do with their pain that I do not and cannot ever experience. It's pretty good just a general policy not to tell people how to live their lives and deal with their own emotions, right? I mean, isn't that what's so irritating about this 'white privilege' stuff -- that others are telling you you have this problem and this is what you need to do about it? The difference being, I suppose, that the fact that blacks suffered through slavery in the USA is not really debatable, while plenty of people will debate whether or not 'white privilege' really exists.

I dunno...the point is: just because it wasn't yesterday doesn't mean it was forever ago. You can disagree with some central 'social justice' tenets (though some people will hate you for it) and still acknowledge the reality of racial injustice in the US' history and the effects that this has on the present. If Flint, MI were full of Buffys and Beckys and Susans, does anyone really think their water crisis would've been ignored for so long, or the handling of it so horribly mismanaged? (NB: Flint is still over 40% white, so the point isn't that the government purposely did anything because they hate blacks and Flint is majority black, since it's not like they could direct the bad water to only go to black homes, but rather than the town as a whole is kind of a blight and Michigan already has so many problems and so little money, they didn't deal with it properly; if it was a place with a higher tax base/bracket, they probably would've jumped to it, because money talks, and white people do tend to be more wealthy than black people in the USA. That's an economic fact, not a statement of personal or community worth.)

I think that's an unfair argument that shifts the conversation into one of "guilt". White privilege isn't....by any measure....about the "guilt" of the white race.

Regardless though....if we are expecting people to atone for historical "wrongdoings" of their ancestors....why do we only focus on blacks? Why not asians? Why not hispanics or latinos? Why not seek redress for the wrongdoings against whites?

My family history can be traced back to Irish migrants who came here fleeing the Irish Potato Famine. That's a pretty awful period of oppression and inhumanity at the hands of the British and like most....they arrived with little more than the shirts on their backs. When they arrived, they faced widespread discrimination and oppression against them by the Americans already here.

On my mother's side, I've got Polish roots that extend to a large migration that once again....began under some horrific and oppressive circumstances and they too faced widespread discrimination and lack of opportunity.

Now I'm not trying to compare that to slavery or really any group of people who came here impoverished and fleeing violence or oppression. That's pointless.

The point I am making is that I can acknowledge that the circumstances of today for blacks and other races are definitely influenced by hardship, oppression, discrimination, lack of opportunity, etc. Can you acknowledge that the same goes for almost everyone who arrived in this nation from it's first settlers onward? There's a very very small group that came here from somewhere else with a big pile of wealth and have managed to stay wealthy ever since.

Do we all somehow deserve redress for all wrongdoings against our various ancestors from the descendants of the ancestors who wronged them? I understand that the discrimination against the Irish or Polish my ancestors faced wasn't always instituted by law or policy....but that doesn't mean it wasn't both widespread and extremely oppressive. There's very few people today who couldn't point to some moment in history and claim they might have more wealth or more opportunities if it didn't happen.

It's this notion that we can "fix" these things by implementing institutional racism against another race and somehow "even things out" which is completely bizarre to me. If we denied opportunities to whites and asians and gave them to other races.....do you really believe that eventually "even out" any disparities between the races? It's extremely difficult to end institutional racism once it begins....and honestly, I don't think it would be easy to give people race based privileges and then just expect them to willingly give them up once things are "even". I don't think a lot of the white people advocating for this nonsense today would be advocating for ending the changes they want to implement .....because it's going to make them look racist. They'll have to face being called racist by many non-whites and frankly, they won't want to face that.

I don't think one can ever hope to fix the inequities of systemic racism by implementing systemic racism against another race. It's absurd.....both logically and morally. To do it in the first place is practically an admission that it's not inherently wrong to systemically oppress a people because of their race.

dzheremi · Jun 17, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
I think that's an unfair argument that shifts the conversation into one of "guilt". White privilege isn't....by any measure....about the "guilt" of the white race.

What are you talking about? Where did I talk about "guilt"? Where did I even use the word "guilt"?

Regardless though....if we are expecting people to atone for historical "wrongdoings" of their ancestors....why do we only focus on blacks? Why not asians? Why not hispanics or latinos? Why not seek redress for the wrongdoings against whites?

Again, where is this in my post?

(remainder snipped for time and space considerations)

I don't know why any of this was written in response to my post. I think you are making a different point than I am making. The point I was making was again:

(1) Slavery wasn't a million years ago, so it's perhaps a bit unrealistic to expect the effects of it (and not just it, but Jim Crow laws, redlining, etc.) to be isolated to just those who had immediately suffered under it or their direct descendants

(2) Since a lot of who gets ahead or stays ahead has to do with who was already ahead in some way, things like income disparity can carry over from generation to generation, resulting in situations in places where poor people are concentrated (e.g., Flint, which is again something like 41% white) being handled differently be officials than situations would be handled elsewhere. This is specifically a 'racial' point, but when you consider that there is a large income disparity between people of different races, it can easy to make that correlation (whether it is ultimately correct or not; I'd have to look at some longitudinal, multi-variable studies, and I'm not a sociologist, so then I'd probably have to get a sociologist to break them down for me)

Your reply seem to have a lot more to do with 'guilt' than my post did. How did I get drawn into this redirected conversation about "Why's it only white people who are blamed" when I'm the one bringing up the White Panther Party and the Armenians and stuff? Hahaha.

tall73 · Jun 17, 2019

Given that recent data shows millennials with lower net worth than previous generations at that age by some 35 percent, there may not be a lot of wealth left to pass on.

Either way, the solution is not to create a system which systemically advantages one group over another.

American millennials have an average net worth of $8,000 — and it's part of a bigger financial problem the generation is facing

Average millennials’ net worth is $8,000, study finds

jacks · Jun 17, 2019

Fortunately for them Millennials are going to inherit over $30 Trillion Dollars! So saving for retirement might not be a top priority for them.

Ana the Ist · Jun 17, 2019

dzheremi said:
What are you talking about? Where did I talk about "guilt"? Where did I even use the word "guilt"?

I thought that was the point of your last paragraph.

Again, where is this in my post?

I'm wary of anyone who says "we need to acknowledge this...." because what the conversation seems to always turn from is "acknowledge this" to "now we need to do this or do that".

They never really just want acknowledgment. They want acknowledgment....and then it turns into a poor justification for something else.

If we're being honest...everyone knows the past happened, and everyone knows the present is affected by it. Perhaps there's some people who disagree about some details, but what difference does that make? What exactly is achieved by "acknowledging" something?

I don't know why any of this was written in response to my post. I think you are making a different point than I am making. The point I was making was again:

(1) Slavery wasn't a million years ago, so it's perhaps a bit unrealistic to expect the effects of it (and not just it, but Jim Crow laws, redlining, etc.) to be isolated to just those who had immediately suffered under it or their direct descendants

I think the vast majority of people know this....they may disagree about the extent of those affects....but who cares if they do? Does it matter? Stating that the present is affected by the past isn't much of a point.

(2) Since a lot of who gets ahead or stays ahead has to do with who was already ahead in some way, things like income disparity can carry over from generation to generation, resulting in situations in places where poor people are concentrated (e.g., Flint, which is again something like 41% white) being handled differently be officials than situations would be handled elsewhere. This is specifically a 'racial' point, but when you consider that there is a large income disparity between people of different races, it can easy to make that correlation (whether it is ultimately correct or not; I'd have to look at some longitudinal, multi-variable studies, and I'm not a sociologist, so then I'd probably have to get a sociologist to break them down for me)

Sure. Here's another fun fact....this has been true for all of human history. The European traders arriving in Africa were wealthier than the African kings they traded with and their entire tribes combined. If you look at their pasts, you'll see that they caused those disparities as well.

Our relative wealth as Americans is largely built upon oppression, inhumanity, unfairness, and in a very general sense...people taking advantage of the advantages they had. If you want a clear example, look into the Chinese factory workers who make iphones and how they were committing suicide by jumping off the factories to escape their oppression. The solution wasn't to give them a living wage or improve working conditions....it was to build nets to prevent the fall from killing them.

Your reply seem to have a lot more to do with 'guilt' than my post did. How did I get drawn into this redirected conversation about "Why's it only white people who are blamed" when I'm the one bringing up the White Panther Party and the Armenians and stuff? Hahaha.

I thought you were going somewhere with it other than "past affects present".

dzheremi · Jun 17, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
I thought that was the point of your last paragraph.

Not really. I mean, the University of Michigan did some study that found various problems with the then-governor's handling of the situation and said that he was therefore at least somewhat personally responsible, but even then that's one guy who happened to be a white guy. There's no "all white people are guilty for this" in that. My point was more that since local/state governments tend to respond better to and take better care of those who generate more for them in taxes (which, yes, tend to be whiter areas, since white people tend to have more money overall), and Flint MI isn't one of those places, they got hosed. You'll never see brown water coming out of faucets in Malibu or whatever.

I'm wary of anyone who says "we need to acknowledge this...." because what the conversation seems to always turn from is "acknowledge this" to "now we need to do this or do that".

I didn't write that. You're responding to things based on where you think I'm going with things I didn't even write. I wrote that we can acknowledge XYZ without buying into the whole giant ball of social justice grievances. Y'know, there's a middle ground between pretending that white people are irredeemably evil for existing and pretending that slavery happened 500 years ago in a galaxy far, far away, and anyway they're not even logically connected (which was, again, my point: you can recognize the falsehood of the latter without falling into the falsehood of the former).

They never really just want acknowledgment. They want acknowledgment....and then it turns into a poor justification for something else.

Who's they? Black people? Non-white people more generally? Poor people? And what does this have to do with anything in my post? I didn't write anything about anyone just wants acknowledgment, and realistically I wouldn't have anything to offer besides that, so...oh well, I guess.

If we're being honest...everyone knows the past happened, and everyone knows the present is affected by it. Perhaps there's some people who disagree about some details, but what difference does that make? What exactly is achieved by "acknowledging" something?

Please keep in mind that the post I was responding to was making the argument that all of that was a long time ago and therefore XYZ. So my subsequent reply was to say that it really wasn't so long ago, and acknowledging that it was recent enough in history to still have an effect on people doesn't have to mean going along with any of the narrative that generally follows the progressive view of things like this, wherein you then have to 'atone' for being white and all that nonsense (everything I wrote about in my first post). So it's not really about achieving something else to begin with; only saying "No, it really wasn't that long ago, and it's fine to admit that and then move on, without all this stuff about what black people should do with their feelings or whatever or what media they should or shouldn't consume" (another point the poster made with regard to rap music).

Sometimes the point of the post is actually contained within the post, not by inference.

I think the vast majority of people know this....they may disagree about the extent of those affects....but who cares if they do? Does it matter? Stating that the present is affected by the past isn't much of a point.

It was exactly as much of a point as the post I was responding to made, i.e., "It was a long time ago! Get over it! Stop listening to the media and rap music!" I don't particularly care what they do. I just thought it was a lame argument.

Sure. Here's another fun fact....this has been true for all of human history.

I didn't even slightly imply otherwise, so everything that follows this is irrelevant.

I thought you were going somewhere with it other than "past affects present".

Nope. I was mostly trying to limit myself to the exact thing that the other poster was saying, which was the opposite point.

tall73 · Jun 17, 2019

jacks said:
Fortunately for them Millennials are going to inherit over $30 Trillion Dollars! So saving for retirement might not be a top priority for them.

Something tells me that might be hit and miss as well. And with the costs of end of life care, and longevity, many might miss out on the inheritance lottery. What is clear is that young people, as a group, are struggling financially, even with whatever benefits previous generations had.

Even then, stats about ethnic groups, stats about age groups, etc. all boil down to generalities when applied to individuals. Policies drawn up that favor one group over another in hiring or acceptance into school wind up impacting individuals, who may or may not be advantaged, disadvantaged, or inheriting a great sum.

We should not justify discrimination based on belonging to any intersectional group.

Pommer · Jun 17, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
Regardless though....if we are expecting people to atone for historical "wrongdoings" of their ancestors....why do we only focus on blacks? Why not asians? Why not hispanics or latinos? Why not seek redress for the wrongdoings against whites?

How’s about we start with the concerns of blacks first, seeings as how whites have had their say for 242 years?
Maybe that’d “get the ball rolling”?

Pommer · Jun 17, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
I'm wary of anyone who says "we need to acknowledge this...." because what the conversation seems to always turn from is "acknowledge this" to "now we need to do this or do that".

They never really just want acknowledgment. They want acknowledgment....and then it turns into a poor justification for something else.

I’m hearing “when will it just END?”?

Maybe when grievances are redressed?

Ana the Ist · Jun 17, 2019

dzheremi said:
Not really. I mean, the University of Michigan did some study that found various problems with the then-governor's handling of the situation and said that he was therefore at least somewhat personally responsible, but even then that's one guy who happened to be a white guy. There's no "all white people are guilty for this" in that. My point was more that since local/state governments tend to respond better to and take better care of those who generate more for them in taxes (which, yes, tend to be whiter areas, since white people tend to have more money overall), and Flint MI isn't one of those places, they got hosed. You'll never see brown water coming out of faucets in Malibu or whatever.

That's a wealth issue...not a racial one. There's plenty of poor white communities that receive little to no consideration from politicians. They may be a smaller percentage of the overall white population....but they are more numerous than any other racial group.

I didn't write that. You're responding to things based on where you think I'm going with things I didn't even write. I wrote that we can acknowledge XYZ without buying into the whole giant ball of social justice grievances. Y'know, there's a middle ground between pretending that white people are irredeemably evil for existing and pretending that slavery happened 500 years ago in a galaxy far, far away, and anyway they're not even logically connected (which was, again, my point: you can recognize the falsehood of the latter without falling into the falsehood of the former).

You're not reading what I'm saying....nobody really pretends slavery is so far in the past that it doesn't affect anything. I'm sure there's a small number of people who do....but who cares?

What difference does that make?

Who's they?

People asking for "acknowledgment".

Please keep in mind that the post I was responding to was making the argument that all of that was a long time ago and therefore XYZ.

If his argument was "therefore I'm not responsible for it and people would be better off moving on" he's probably right.

So my subsequent reply was to say that it really wasn't so long ago, and acknowledging that it was recent enough in history to still have an effect on people doesn't have to mean going along with any of the narrative that generally follows the progressive view of things like this, wherein you then have to 'atone' for being white and all that nonsense (everything I wrote about in my first post). So it's not really about achieving something else to begin with; only saying "No, it really wasn't that long ago, and it's fine to admit that and then move on, without all this stuff about what black people should do with their feelings or whatever or what media they should or shouldn't consume" (another point the poster made with regard to rap music).

Have you ever had someone ask you to acknowledge something that wasn't followed by an argument about something else?

What's the magical thing that happens after acknowledging something? As far as I can tell, even if everyone didn't acknowledge it...everything still stays the same.

I don't particularly care what they do. I just thought it was a lame argument.

Then why ask for acknowledgment in the first place?

I didn't even slightly imply otherwise, so everything that follows this is irrelevant.

Nope. I was mostly trying to limit myself to the exact thing that the other poster was saying, which was the opposite point.

Ok...they clearly disagree with how much the past affects the present.

tall73 · Jun 17, 2019

Pommer said:
I’m hearing “when will it just END?”?

Maybe when grievances are redressed?

Non-discrimination laws in hiring, housing, etc. have already been adopted. When people violate the law they can be prosecuted.

Affirmative action programs are discrimination, not a solution to discrimination.

Ana the Ist · Jun 17, 2019

Pommer said:
I’m hearing “when will it just END?”?

Maybe when grievances are redressed?

By whom?

tall73 · Jun 17, 2019

What if you are the descendant of a Chinese immigrant who helped create the trans-continental railway, living in a camp, under discriminatory and exploitive pay and work practices, in exceedingly dangerous conditions, and then are denied a job because you are from a group that is over represented in STEM or tech fields?

Does that address historic wrongs somehow?

The below is just an example:

New Lawsuit Exposes Google's Desperation to Improve Diversity

dzheremi · Jun 17, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
That's a wealth issue...not a racial one. There's plenty of poor white communities that receive little to no consideration from politicians. They may be a smaller percentage of the overall white population....but they are more numerous than any other racial group.

Yes.

You're not reading what I'm saying....nobody really pretends slavery is so far in the past that it doesn't affect anything. I'm sure there's a small number of people who do....but who cares?

What difference does that make?

When I think I'm corresponding with such a person, I treat their post accordingly.

People asking for "acknowledgment".

Oh. So not me. Okay.

If his argument was "therefore I'm not responsible for it and people would be better off moving on" he's probably right.

That's not how I read it, but maybe that was his argument. I don't know. I read it as "That was a long time ago; get over it!", which doesn't really say anything about whether or not he feels or is personally responsible for anything.

Have you ever had someone ask you to acknowledge something that wasn't followed by an argument about something else?

When did I ever ask anyone to acknowledge anything? I wrote that it is possible to acknowledge that slavery wasn't a long time ago without treating white people as evil as a result. That's not asking anyone to acknowledge anything. And I asked if anyone really believed that if Flint were full of rich white suburbanites or upper class people, it would've gotten the same careless treatment as it actually did as a mostly poor, mostly black city? I even specified that it was a matter of the tax base, which you're right isn't inherently a racial statistic (you could eliminate that variable by removing the racial makeup stats and just going by median income and I bet you'd find plenty of poor majority non-black neighborhoods in the country; I should know -- I lived in one in New Mexico for four years, where there were barely any black people to be found in the entire state, and yet we were constantly tied with or 'beating' Mississippi for poorest state in the union according to this or that study), but does tend to correlate with race overall. (Again, correlation doesn't equal causation, so I'd have to dig deeper into the data to see the bigger picture about any given results.)

What's the magical thing that happens after acknowledging something? As far as I can tell, even if everyone didn't acknowledge it...everything still stays the same.

I agree. That's why those little pink ribbons haven't magically destroyed breast cancer.

Then why ask for acknowledgment in the first place?

I didn't.

Ok...they clearly disagree with how much the past affects the present.

Okay.

Ana the Ist · Jun 17, 2019

Pommer said:
How’s about we start with the concerns of blacks first, seeings as how whites have had their say for 242 years?

Because I don't agree with the idea that we can implement systemic racism to address problems in the present. Make no mistake, systemic racism is what someone is advocating whenever they are saying that we should implement policies or laws redistributing wealth or opportunities based upon race.

I think we'd simply be doing more damage.

Maybe that’d “get the ball rolling”?

Towards what exactly?

Ana the Ist · Jun 17, 2019

dzheremi said:
Yes.

Oh look...we agree.

When did I ever ask anyone to acknowledge anything? I wrote that it is possible to acknowledge that slavery wasn't a long time ago without treating white people as evil as a result. That's not asking anyone to acknowledge anything.

Ok.

And I asked if anyone really believed that if Flint were full of rich white suburbanites or upper class people, it would've gotten the same careless treatment as it actually did as a mostly poor, mostly black city? I even specified that it was a matter of the tax base, which you're right isn't inherently a racial statistic

Then why racialize it?

(you could eliminate that variable by removing the racial makeup stats and just going by median income and I bet you'd find plenty of poor majority non-black neighborhoods in the country; I should know -- I lived in one in New Mexico for four years, where there were barely any black people to be found in the entire state, and yet we were constantly tied with or 'beating' Mississippi for poorest state in the union according to this or that study), but does tend to correlate with race overall. (Again, correlation doesn't equal causation, so I'd have to dig deeper into the data to see the bigger picture about any given results.)

Not sure what you're trying to say with this.

Pommer · Jun 17, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
By whom?

Our society, state AND church, (where applicable), to the satisfaction of the aggrieved.

Ana the Ist · Jun 17, 2019

Pommer said:
Our society, state AND church, (where applicable), to the satisfaction of the aggrieved.

The last Jim Crow law I found was implemented by Woodrow Wilson in 1914. I can understand wanting to go after him....but he's dead....so I don't see you having much success.

Everyone after him was, arguably, following the law. If we go after them for following the law....you'd be setting a rather frightful precedent wherein anyone who followed the law one day could be punished for it if the law ever changes.

Imagine if we outlawed abortion one day.....and the next we dug through medical records and prosecuted women who had abortions when it was legal? Do you think that would be just? Or a massive injustice?

Even worse....for any progress to occur, we would have to be willing to open ourselves to prosecution for past deeds that were once legal. I don't see a lot of progress happening after that.

dzheremi · Jun 17, 2019

Ana the Ist said:
Then why racialize it?

Because race and class tend to be interrelated.

Not sure what you're trying to say with this.

If we were to obscure race as one of our variables and just go by income level (so as to not predispose ourselves to assuming that the lowest income level places would be majority this or that), I bet we would find plenty of non-black poor areas, as it's not like only black people live in poverty (white people do too, of course, as do Asians, Native Americans, and everyone else), and yet I imagine that since poverty and race tend to correlate, a larger percentage of black people would be living in poverty than white people, even if the percentage of white people made up the largest overall number (since the country itself is majority white).

Ana the Ist · Jun 18, 2019

dzheremi said:
Because race and class tend to be interrelated.

Are they? I understand that if we group people by race....we'll find that some races are doing better than others on average. If we group people by age....we'll find some ages tend to be wealthier on average. If we group people by sex, gender, sexuality, religion, height, weight, etc....my guess is that no matter what we group people by, we'll find one group doing better than the others on average.

If we group people by number of siblings....we'll find one group doing better than the others on average.

Why? Because there's really no reason to expect or believe they would ever be doing equally well.

Third Wave Anti-racism

Aggressively serene!

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Sophia7's husband

Er Victus

Aggressively serene!

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Sophia7's husband

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Aggressively serene!

Sophia7's husband

Aggressively serene!

Sophia7's husband

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Aggressively serene!

Aggressively serene!

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Aggressively serene!

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Aggressively serene!

Similar threads