New York Magazine: Donald Trump’s Race War

[SolomonVII]

There was this radio blog I was listening to today, and the host noted how mainstream comedians were mocking Trump. Time and again, when they mimic him, they do so by taking on the accent and vocal tones typical of rural white people. Then these people themselves recognize that these comedians are not making fun of Trump. They are making fun of them personally, the people in fly-over country.

An ex-Iowan farmer, say, who lost the farm to the last recession and is trying to make ends meet in an economy that no longer really works for him looks at people like Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, or Barrack Obama, out there yachting recently with Tom Hanks and the sneering Hollywood jet set crowd, and he probably just doesn't see himself as privileged and blacks as oppressed, just on account of skin tone.

The faults of Donald Trump are transparent and too numerous to count. Everybody gets that.
But the one thing that Donald Trump does not do, and Barrack Obama and Tom Hanks and their jet-setting buddies of Holly do do, is sneer at these white people clinging to their 'guns and their religion' through the great 'privilege' that is the birthright of anyone born white in America.

It is not that Trump is so great that people actually voted him in. It is that everybody who opposes him is just so bad.

Of course, who wouldn't like Forrest Gump though, right?

Yea, people are starting to see that all as an act.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I live in Arizona. A few years ago I was stopped for driving at night through a predominantly Mexican neighborhood known as Guadalupe. When the cop realized I was white and he couldn't ask me to prove I was a US citizen, he came up with the excuse that he stopped me because the light on my license plate was out and let me go without a ticket or a warning.

The light wasn't out.

I lived and worked in Arizona for five years. Cops don't enforce immigration laws. So if a cop is going to call a customs or border patrol agent to a stop because they suspect that the person they stopped is in the U.S. illegally...they either had better be very sure, or the agents need be relatively close. If they have to wait 45mins+ to have an agent arrive....and the person is there legally...then they've opened themselves up to a very possible lawsuit which they'll likely lose (for unreasonable detention over a law they don't enforce). I don't know what the nearest station to Guadalupe is (Casa Grande? Phoenix?)....but it seems far more likely that you were stopped for other reasons.

Also...if the officer couldn't tell your race when he stopped you, it's rather odd that you think race would be the reason he stopped you.

This idea that racism doesn't really exist or that minorities use their race to oppress white people is a steaming load of crap. There was a police officer camping out in a Mexican neighborhood detaining people without probable cause in hopes of using SB1070 to catch Mexicans without their immigration paperwork on them.

I don't drive through Guadalupe anymore because I don't want to be pulled over for another 15-30 minutes. I was just inconvenienced and made mildly uncomfortable. Imagine how the residents of that town felt being watched every day by police officers that weren't there to protect or serve them, but that were there to find or manufacture reasons to detain them.

To my knowledge, SB1070 only allows state police to inquire about immigration status (not stop people for it) not local police. It definitely doesn't allow them to stop people solely for the purpose of conducting immigration checks (this was a misconception spread by the left when it was passed). I don't know if it was state or local police that you dealt with...I'm just saying that if it wasn't a highway you were pulled over on, it seems more likely it was local or county sheriffs.

 

[MrSpikey]

The left in this nation has only exacerbated things by waging a war against white men, through an almost constant stream of "white privilege", "white supremacy", and "systemic/institutional racism" narratives.

I don't expect blacks and other minorities to overcome poverty in just a couple of generations...just the opposite, I would it expect it to take much longer.

Why are "blacks and other minorities" so vastly overrepresented in the ranks of the poor in the first place? How long do you think is acceptable for this to normalize, and why do you expect it to take so long?

While I don't think the tactics of asserting "white privilege" to all and sundry is a useful way to address the situation, I think you are going to have to come up with an alternative reason for the continuing situation of minorities in America if there isn't a level of "systemic/institutional racism".

In short - are they failing because they are "blacks or other minorities", or because society still discriminates against "blacks or other minorities" relative to e.g. "white men"?

 

[camille70]

I've no doubt that much of what Trump says and does appeals to racists. That said...

The left in this nation has only exacerbated things by waging a war against white men, through an almost constant stream of "white privilege", "white supremacy", and "systemic/institutional racism" narratives. If the left weren't so intent on making identity politics, social justice, and anti-white sentiment their loudest message....then all of Trump's racist idiocy wouldn't make any difference, because he would only have a tiny audience willing to listen. As it stands, the left is practically tossing him new supporters every day.

There is anti-white sentiment and there is anti white-SUPREMACY sentiment. These aren't the same things. I do get that people are tired of hearing about it, and people tend to wear out buzz words, but being able to say you (not you personally) are tired of hearing about it is part of that privilege, because those people aren't affected negatively by it so they can ignore it's affects.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Lots of good questions here...I'll try my best...

Why are "blacks and other minorities" so vastly overrepresented in the ranks of the poor in the first place?

For blacks specifically, I've no doubt that it has a lot to do with the racism and oppression they faced before the civil rights era...but that's a rather complicated question. First off...not all minorities are overrepresented in the ranks of the poor, asians are overrepresented in the ranks of the wealthy. Secondly, rapid changes in the economy such as the manufacturing loss of the 70s is a big factor. Thirdly, one has to consider cultural factors as well....such as the fact that for some reason, blacks spend a whopping 30% more of their total income than any other group.

So like I said, it's a complex and multifaceted issue...but sadly, people are dumb and they want simple answers that don't require them doing anything, so "it's the white man's fault" is an appealing answer to many.

How long do you think is acceptable for this to normalize, and why do you expect it to take so long?

What are we talking about? The transition of a group of people who were brought into a nation as slaves, given equal rights, and eventually becoming such an integral part of society that they're viewed without any substantial differences than the group that enslaved them?

If that's what we're talking about...I'm sure it's going to depend upon a number of factors. Things like "how strongly do they want to maintain a separate cultural identity vs how much do they want to assimilate?" and "how much are both sides willing to participate in mutual respect?"

While I certainly don't have a date set for that kind of integration (if that's what we're talking about)...I would expect it to take a lot longer than a few decades. I would expect it to take at least a century under ideal conditions...probably longer under more realistic conditions.

While I don't think the tactics of asserting "white privilege" to all and sundry is a useful way to address the situation, I think you are going to have to come up with an alternative reason for the continuing situation of minorities in America if there isn't a level of "systemic/institutional racism".

Uh huh...well like I said, I think the real reasons why we see large scale differences between such large groups is inevitably far more complex than matters of skin color...my biggest problem with the notions of "institutional/systemic racism" is the blatant vagueness of it.

I've looked up definitions of it...which are also ridiculously vague. I've read blog after blog from people who lecture on it...and it's still almost insanely vague. I literally read a blog yesterday that talked about it...stating that "if you aren't actively fighting institutional racism as a white person...then you're passively supporting it"....and yet they failed to give even a rudimentary example of it.

It's as if in the early 2000s...the black rights movement realized that overt and blatant racism was not only very scarce, it was almost universally repudiated. No one supported it...it was a thing for the very young, immature, or uneducated. So without having that as an enemy of blacks to point at...without that as an excuse for all shortcomings...what could they possibly point at? Institutions....systems. The problem is though, that institutions and systems don't have feelings, opinions, or attitudes. They have laws and policies...but we've already removed the racist parts of those with anti-discrimination laws. So what are these racist institutions/systems that we're talking about? Far too often, it comes off as some vague bogeyman that if you aren't pretending to fight...well you must be supporting it! It's beyond stupid.

In short - are they failing because they are "blacks or other minorities", or because society still discriminates against "blacks or other minorities" relative to e.g. "white men"?

I think the biggest impediment to confronting this issue is that we can't speak honestly about it...there's far too much condemnation and judgement on every side to hope to approach it.

A lot of this argument has been resting on the notion of "implicit bias" or "unconscious bias" to explain these differences. I just read an article a few days ago...about a study with thousands of subjects, across over a decade of research, that included multiple ivy league schools and research institutes....and you know what they found? Implicit bias probably doesn't have that big of an impact on decision making. It's the exact opposite of everyone's expectations. The impact of implicit bias is entirely negligible.

While I have yet to see any major publications jump on this study...where would that leave the conversation? If the laws aren't against you...if people aren't explicitly against you...if people aren't unconsciously against you....who is left to be responsible for your lot in life?

You are.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There is anti-white sentiment and there is anti white-SUPREMACY sentiment. These aren't the same things. I do get that people are tired of hearing about it, and people tend to wear out buzz words, but being able to say you (not you personally) are tired of hearing about it is part of that privilege, because those people aren't affected negatively by it so they can ignore it's affects.

The problem with the "white supremacy" narrative is that it's deliberately vague and unnecessarily hyperbolic...making it effectively garbage. Words aren't "violence"...being around white people isn't "oppression"...and not being given special consideration based upon your skin color isn't "marginalization". Now, if we can agree on those points....and you can give me a valid explanation of what "white supremacy" is, I'll gladly listen and consider anything you have to say.

Edit-Upon further consideration, I'd also add that no one has some right to not be offended.

 

[camille70]

Oh, please. There was plenty of self-righteous sanctimony in your post #6, which was written before any of us leftist white-haters even joined the thread.

I didn't actually expect him to read all the links, but it was interesting to me that he took issue with the name of a site he'd never heard of rather than the content.

The narrative when it comes to PoC is that we are less intelligent, a burden on the system, don't give back to or contribute to society, are a lost cause from the start, will be criminal, and once on that criminal path there is no redemption so lock us up early and long. This is part of "othering" that lets people dismiss wrongs and injustices done to a particular group because they see them as less than human, deserving of hardships or abuse, less intelligent or violent who need to be controlled etc. It lets one be less compassionate because either you "deserve" poor treatment, don't know how to respond to good treatment, or that the poor treatment is acceptable because they are used to poor conditions and that makes everything ok, or some sort of variation on that theme. Like a feral animal you lock up or put down to protect themselves or others. Injustices are acceptable and EXPECTED because they are part of x group.

It lets people live with themselves and their inaction over something that they would see as a wrong if it had been done to a member of their own group. PoC are often erased. If our kids go missing, you rarely see a nationwide news story. Locally parents are dismissed, told their kids are runaways, no matter how far out of the norm not being in contact with their family is or no matter how good a student they were. Most coverage you see about PoC will be negative, you rarely see the media coverage of average Poc that paint them as human.

When there was a crack epidemic, it was because Poc were just prone to drug use, an inherent character or DNA flaw. Lock them up. Now that there is a meth epidemic that is affecting white people? We have to look at what circumstances or hardships would cause all these people to use drugs, get them treatment, and get them help. No talk whatsoever of bootstraps or jail time or leaving them to their on devices.

The links I included are links about PoC working to make things better. Kids getting scholarships. Former felons graduating valedictorian, a formerly drug addicted older couple overcoming that addiction and going to college and graduating together, a young woman who will be working with NASA, kids being accepted to college at young ages, young people helping the homeless and starting businesses. White supremacy ignores and erases the accomplishments of PoC. These human interest stories are rarely seen in MSM, nor do they make it to awareness of the people who do not have relationships with PoC to know better than stereotypes (and government propaganda at one time) they see on TV. I have dozens of links and stories I could post. Musical talents, kid proteges and everything else, but it doesn't fit the narrative that all PoC are burdens on society who never give back and who are living off your tax dollars.

 

[camille70]

The problem with the "white supremacy" narrative is that it's deliberately vague and unnecessarily hyperbolic...making it effectively garbage. Words aren't "violence"...being around white people isn't "oppression"...and not being given special consideration based upon your skin color isn't "marginalization". Now, if we can agree on those points....and you can give me a valid explanation of what "white supremacy" is, I'll gladly listen and consider anything you have to say.

Edit-Upon further consideration, I'd also add that no one has some right to not be offended.

This seems to be a overly simplistic view of the complaints of PoC. Words aren't the problem, but stopping someone from getting a job, or a loan, or living in a particular place, or over policing, over disciplining in schools, etc, because of being a perceived threat due to skin color is a problem. PoC aren't often seeking special consideration, but FAIR consideration, again there is a difference. I've never heard that simply being around white people is oppression, oppression requires action or even presenting some type of barrier.

Someone before took issue with the fact that there are minority focused organizations, as though they would have been created if minorities were being admitted to and fairly considered for the the white (by default) institutions that were already in existence. When you are excluded or despised, not represented or underrepresented because your numbers are few, there is no other option. MTV at one time wouldn't play videos by black artists, but now there is an issue because BET was created. (I dislike that channel, but that's not the point). That wasn't in the 50's that was in the 1980's.

Even police unions have a black union or association in most places. Why is that? Because even though they all wear blue, there is still separation between black and white, micro aggression etc. Edward Thomas, the first black police officer in Houston that retired in 2011 and passed in 2015 said he wasn't allowed to arrest white people when he started the force. He also wasn't permitted to eat in the cafeteria. After the rules changed, he still wouldn't set foot in there. These associations may or may not have been formed during and before the civil rights era, but the attitude and culture was passed on and lingers on. PoC were not wanted on the police force and were often discriminated against, and that attitude hasn't disappeared completely.

Honestly though, I really don't want to have a back and forth on this. I only commented because some of the stuff I was reading was so incredulous.



The untold story of HPD's first black officer

 

[Ana the Ist]

This seems to be a overly simplistic view of the complaints of PoC. Words aren't the problem, but stopping someone from getting a job, or a loan, or living in a particular place, or over policing, over disciplining in schools, etc, because of being a perceived threat due to skin color is a problem. PoC aren't often seeking special consideration, but FAIR consideration, again there is a difference. I've never heard that simply being around white people is oppression, oppression requires action or even presenting some type of barrier.

Really? You've never heard that being around white people is oppressive? I'm probably reading more editorials and blogs than you then...but don't be surprised if you start to see it in the future.

I get it though...you see these things like a black man getting rejected for a loan, or pulled over by the police, and you don't want it to be "unfair". What is "fair" though? Surely you realize that people, blacks included, get rejected for loans or pulled over for entirely legitimate reasons. Those aren't the instances that you're talking about. We also can assume that people, black and white, get pulled over or rejected for loans for illegitimate reasons...which may not have anything at all to do with race. I'm guessing that isn't what you're talking about either.

So, if I may venture a guess here...you're talking about those instances when a black person is treated unfairly specifically because of his/her race....is that about right?
Can I also assume that you realize there's always going to be at least some small amount of idiots who do such things...treating others unfairly because of race....and that isn't what you mean when you say "white supremacy" because it's not a "small" thing....it's something very large that affects potentially millions of non-whites?

I'm only asking these things because it's important to this question...

How do you know there's this mass "unfair treatment based upon race" going on against non-whites?

Someone before took issue with the fact that there are minority focused organizations, as though they would have been created if minorities were being admitted to and fairly considered for the the white (by default) institutions that were already in existence.

What is a "white by default" institution?

When you are excluded or despised, not represented or underrepresented because your numbers are few, there is no other option.

What institution excludes blacks?

MTV at one time wouldn't play videos by black artists, but now there is an issue because BET was created. (I dislike that channel, but that's not the point).

And now MTV plays a dearth of black artists....at such a rate that they probably far exceed the percentage of blacks in the population. We're talking about a problem that exists now...so let's use examples from now...otherwise it ends up looking like you want people to answer for the mistakes of others in the past, and that's something that no one is willing to do.

Even police unions have a black union or association in most places. Why is that? Because even though they all wear blue, there is still separation between black and white, micro aggression etc. Edward Thomas, the first black police officer in Houston that retired in 2011 and passed in 2015 said he wasn't allowed to arrest white people when he started the force. He also wasn't permitted to eat in the cafeteria. After the rules changed, he still wouldn't set foot in there. These associations may or may not have been formed during and before the civil rights era, but the attitude and culture was passed on and lingers on. PoC were not wanted on the police force and were often discriminated against, and that attitude hasn't disappeared completely.

As someone who works in that particular institution....I can understand why it might seem that way if you latch onto the personal experiences of a few people who's opinions bolster your own....but having worked with local, state, and federal authorities across multiple states, that's not even remotely accurate to what I've seen.

Honestly though, I really don't want to have a back and forth on this. I only commented because some of the stuff I was reading was so incredulous.



The untold story of HPD's first black officer

A lack of willingness to discuss these things is one of the common aspects I've noticed of the left these days....and it's not a sign of a strong position.

 

[camille70]

Really? You've never heard that being around white people is oppressive? I'm probably reading more editorials and blogs than you then...but don't be surprised if you start to see it in the future.

I get it though...you see these things like a black man getting rejected for a loan, or pulled over by the police, and you don't want it to be "unfair". What is "fair" though? Surely you realize that people, blacks included, get rejected for loans or pulled over for entirely legitimate reasons. Those aren't the instances that you're talking about. We also can assume that people, black and white, get pulled over or rejected for loans for illegitimate reasons...which may not have anything at all to do with race. I'm guessing that isn't what you're talking about either.

So, if I may venture a guess here...you're talking about those instances when a black person is treated unfairly specifically because of his/her race....is that about right?
Can I also assume that you realize there's always going to be at least some small amount of idiots who do such things...treating others unfairly because of race....and that isn't what you mean when you say "white supremacy" because it's not a "small" thing....it's something very large that affects potentially millions of non-whites?

I'm only asking these things because it's important to this question...

How do you know there's this mass "unfair treatment based upon race" going on against non-whites?



What is a "white by default" institution?




What institution excludes blacks?



And now MTV plays a dearth of black artists....at such a rate that they probably far exceed the percentage of blacks in the population. We're talking about a problem that exists now...so let's use examples from now...otherwise it ends up looking like you want people to answer for the mistakes of others in the past, and that's something that no one is willing to do.




As someone who works in that particular institution....I can understand why it might seem that way if you latch onto the personal experiences of a few people who's opinions bolster your own....but having worked with local, state, and federal authorities across multiple states, that's not even remotely accurate to what I've seen.



A lack of willingness to discuss these things is one of the common aspects I've noticed of the left these days....and it's not a sign of a strong position.

LOL. So how far back is the past where it can no longer be taken into consideration? The info I posted on the car loans was from 2016 regarding loans from as late as 2014.

From the article:

But Toyota is not alone. This decision comes on the heels of a number of other settlement actions involving the auto loan business. For example, in 2013, Ally Financial — formerly the General Motors subsidiary known as GMAC — was fined $18 million by the DOJ and CFPB and settled with the feds by agreeing to create an $80 million restitution fund, amid allegations of auto loan discrimination.


Further, last year the Ohio-based Fifth Third Bank paid an $18 million settlement for charging Black and Latino customers $200 or more for auto loans than whites, with some dealerships charging as much as 2.5 percent more than the bank rate for these loans. Dealers were allowed to keep the extra interest as compensation. The bank also paid $3 million in connection with unlawful add-on credit card services, and a $1 million fine for lending violations.


Moreover, last year, Honda Financial — the financing division of Honda — agreed to pay $24 million for its discriminatory practices. And also last year, the Justice Department reached an agreement with Evergreen Bank Group, in which the financial institution paid $395,000 to settle claims of racial discrimination in motorcycle lending. Evergreen reportedly charged 2,200 Black and Latino borrowers higher interest rates than white customers from 2011 to 2014. This amounted to the average victim paying $200 or $250 extra for their loan due to their race or national origin.


I think you're missing my point, though. People around here speak of racism and the effects of racism as a period of time in this country that had a beginning and an end, like it was a separate era that no alive today has experienced or tries to perpetuate.

First of all, it never ended. Second of all, people marched and fought for civil rights are still alive today. People who were subject to AND in FAVOR of Jim Crow laws and the like are still alive today.

Organizations such as the KKK are still around and active, and hate groups have been shown to be increasing in recent years. If racism is dead, why do they still exist? It's not a bunch of old men on their last leg holding on to the vestiges of hate who will be gone in a few years. It's men and women who have raised their kids to have the same beliefs and passed down their hate affecting young people like Dylan Roof. (He had a "black friend" too.)

Just because we put laws on the books saying it was illegal to discriminate, doesn't mean the hearts of men changed. People who didn't want those JC laws to end and who believed that it was right for PoC to be subject to them were still around and influencing others.

Now do I think things have gotten better? Absolutely. Are there people who overreact and attribute to racism something that may just be indifference or ignorance or someone socially inept? Sure. I see people who take things out of context or attack someone for something that was said and blown out of proportion a regular basis. But I think that someone who acts like we are "post racial" or that there isn't a problem in this country with policing, education, jobs and stereotypes and myriad other issues when it comes to PoC is either naive, disingenuous or thinks because it doesn't affect them it doesn't exist. (I haven't see it therefore it's not true).

My unwillingness is not because my position is not strong. (Nice try though.) This is not the only forum or social platform I participate on, I have these discussions all the time. I get tired of people trying to convince me that PoC deserve mistreatment, or death or whatever because of their race. I get tired of educating people who think that PoC populations are made up of criminals and welfare queens. I'm not going to debate my worthiness or the right for PoC to exist. The irony that we are on a Christian forum and some (not you personally) see an entire populace beyond redemption is not lost on me either.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Who is "we" in that statement?

See my earlier post:
New York Magazine: Donald Trump’s Race War

We = our society / nation / government.

Who is saying that they expect that? I don't expect blacks and other minorities to overcome poverty in just a couple of generations...just the opposite, I would it expect it to take much longer.

In this thread, it's primarily Tull. But this has been a popular opinion among conservatives for decades. I remember hearing this as a kid in the early-mid 90s.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I am in the position I am now such as it is because of my work and effort,do you have a job ? if you do why do you have a job ? have you ever been in jail ? if not why not ? what kind of life do you have ? are you going to tell me its all by random chance and had nothing to do with any choices or decisions you have made ? so don't tell me that choices and decisions don't matter with certain people because they are victims of it all.

No one said our choices don't matter. What I and others have said, yet that you apparently refuse to acknowledge, is that other things matter, too. Yes, my choices matter, but my choices and my opportunities/abilities to make certain choices are influenced by other factors outside my control.

Would a child have a choice about being taught how to read? Would a child have a choice about being taught the importance of education and hard work? Or the importance of self-restraint and impulse control? Would a child have a choice about being taught how to have a healthy relationship with a spouse? Would a child have a choice about being taught how to manage money? Would a child have a choice about being taught how to hold themselves to a high standard and explore their full potential?

Yes, I have a job and no, I haven't been in jail. I have a pretty decent life, though there have been bumps. Yes, much of my lifestyle is due to choices I've made, but it's also due to choices that were made for me by other people either when I was a child or before I was born. I can see how my home life is guided by what I saw as a child living with my parents, which was guided by how my grandparents lived, and how my great-grandparents lived. I can see how my job is a result of the education that I received with my parents' support. I can see how I was able to avoid a lot of the negative influences of "bad neighborhoods" thanks to both choices they made and circumstances that weren't forced upon them.

I can also see how their choices -as well-intentioned as they may have been- deprived me of certain opportunities, including some that others in different situations took for granted. I can point to specific cases where their choices and circumstances held me back, and I was too young to know any better and too powerless to do anything about it if I did. And now those opportunities are, in any practical sense, gone for me.

No one is an island and no one's life is a product of solely their own choices.

 

[Ana the Ist]

LOL. So how far back is the past where it can no longer be taken into consideration? The info I posted on the car loans was from 2016 regarding loans from as late as 2014.

I didn't read your post about car loans....I'll have to go back and look at that. My point was that if racial discrimination on MTV isn't an issue now....what exactly is the point of using it as an example of today's problems?

From the article:

But Toyota is not alone. This decision comes on the heels of a number of other settlement actions involving the auto loan business. For example, in 2013, Ally Financial — formerly the General Motors subsidiary known as GMAC — was fined $18 million by the DOJ and CFPB and settled with the feds by agreeing to create an $80 million restitution fund, amid allegations of auto loan discrimination.


Further, last year the Ohio-based Fifth Third Bank paid an $18 million settlement for charging Black and Latino customers $200 or more for auto loans than whites, with some dealerships charging as much as 2.5 percent more than the bank rate for these loans. Dealers were allowed to keep the extra interest as compensation. The bank also paid $3 million in connection with unlawful add-on credit card services, and a $1 million fine for lending violations.


Moreover, last year, Honda Financial — the financing division of Honda — agreed to pay $24 million for its discriminatory practices. And also last year, the Justice Department reached an agreement with Evergreen Bank Group, in which the financial institution paid $395,000 to settle claims of racial discrimination in motorcycle lending. Evergreen reportedly charged 2,200 Black and Latino borrowers higher interest rates than white customers from 2011 to 2014. This amounted to the average victim paying $200 or $250 extra for their loan due to their race or national origin.

So the gist I'm getting from this is that since blacks tend to get worse car loans than other groups....it must be the result of racism...and therefore they deserve some type of compensation for this inequitable outcome. Is that about correct?

Let's assume for a moment that the reason blacks are getting, on average, worse car loans than their white counterparts...what is the result of this awful oppression in our "white supremacist" nation? Well....hundreds of millions of dollars are being awarded to the mistreated blacks as compensation for the alleged discrimination. No offense, but that's hardly what I envisioned as a system of "white supremacy". We have laws against such kinds of discrimination....and even though these car companies could have fought the charges and possibly won...they decided to settle the cases instead. Is this really what you have in mind when you're talking about white supremacy? More importantly....do you personally believe that each of these car companies was engaging in systematic racism to deny blacks the best possible deal on a car that they could get away with?

Before you answer those questions....try to keep in mind that we see different outcomes across gender lines as well....not just racial lines.

Why Men Are Paying More Than Women for Car Leases

Of course, no one is suggesting that biases that favor women are the culprit here....nope. It's simply that women are better at negotiating....right? Yet somehow, I imagine that if I suggested that possibly whites are better at negotiating car loans than blacks...I'd be "in denial", or worse, outright racist.

I think you're missing my point, though. People around here speak of racism and the effects of racism as a period of time in this country that had a beginning and an end, like it was a separate era that no alive today has experienced or tries to perpetuate.

First of all, it never ended. Second of all, people marched and fought for civil rights are still alive today. People who were subject to AND in FAVOR of Jim Crow laws and the like are still alive today.

There's idiots on both sides of the discussion....I'm not denying that. Yes, there's still plenty of old white and black racists and often perpetuate racism to the younger generations. It's very much a part of human nature to identify with your own in- group and fear or reject the out-group. It's not something that I deny.

Organizations such as the KKK are still around and active, and hate groups have been shown to be increasing in recent years. If racism is dead, why do they still exist? It's not a bunch of old men on their last leg holding on to the vestiges of hate who will be gone in a few years. It's men and women who have raised their kids to have the same beliefs and passed down their hate affecting young people like Dylan Roof. (He had a "black friend" too.)

It's ironic that Dylann Roof is the example you chose for this. You realize that he didn't have racist parents or belong to any racist "hate groups". He became self radicalized on the internet....and if you look into his motivation...he claims it started with the rampant anti-white sentiment that he saw after the Treyvon Martin shooting. Imagine that.

Just because we put laws on the books saying it was illegal to discriminate, doesn't mean the hearts of men changed. People who didn't want those JC laws to end and who believed that it was right for PoC to be subject to them were still around and influencing others.

Right, but we don't make thoughts or beliefs illegal in this nation. Even if we dislike them, even if we find them abhorrent, we protect the rights of people to think as they may and voice their opinions.

Now do I think things have gotten better? Absolutely. Are there people who overreact and attribute to racism something that may just be indifference or ignorance or someone socially inept? Sure. I see people who take things out of context or attack someone for something that was said and blown out of proportion a regular basis. But I think that someone who acts like we are "post racial" or that there isn't a problem in this country with policing, education, jobs and stereotypes and myriad other issues when it comes to PoC is either naive, disingenuous or thinks because it doesn't affect them it doesn't exist. (I haven't see it therefore it's not true).

Well, I certainly don't think we're living in a post racial society....but I would disagree with you on several of the things that you mentioned there. I don't think it's even necessarily your fault that you're wrong on some of those topics. It would be difficult for me to elaborate further without knowing exactly what issues you think exist in regard to several of those issues...but I think I can furnish one example....

In your previous post you mentioned that "over-policing" was one of these "institutional/systemic racism" issues. Like you, I remember reading multiple articles after the shooting of Michael Brown that discussed many of the possible examples of racism in the police departments across the U.S. "Over-policing" was one of those examples...and the premise behind it was that police were patrolling and working in predominantly black neighborhoods either out of outwardly racist beliefs that blacks were more often criminals....or perhaps because of the implicit belief that more blacks are criminals. This narrative claimed that the result of this "over policing" resulted in more blacks arrested for minor offenses and subsequently, initiated into a justice system which would leave them few career options outside of a life of crime. Of course, there was the counter point that police were spending more time in black communities because that was where the crime was at. Which side of that argument one took largely depended upon where one stood on the political spectrum...to the left or right.

If one were to sit and think about it though, there's a relatively easy way to figure out if these communities are actually being over policed. How do we find out? It's simple really...take a look at which communities have the most unsolved crimes. If it's the white communities which have a ton of unsolved crimes....then clearly the police are wasting their time in black communities. If, however, these black communities which are being "over policed" also have the highest rates of unsolved crimes....well perhaps they aren't being over policed at all.

Would you like to guess which communities suffer from the most unsolved crimes? Yup, you guessed it....it's the very same black communities which complain about a large police presence. So, with that in mind, one should logically come to the conclusion that perhaps the problem isn't the police being too active one a particular community...perhaps the problem is actually that crime is too prevalent in those communities.

My unwillingness is not because my position is not strong. (Nice try though.) This is not the only forum or social platform I participate on, I have these discussions all the time. I get tired of people trying to convince me that PoC deserve mistreatment, or death or whatever because of their race. I get tired of educating people who think that PoC populations are made up of criminals and welfare queens. I'm not going to debate my worthiness or the right for PoC to exist. The irony that we are on a Christian forum and some (not you personally) see an entire populace beyond redemption is not lost on me either.

Well perhaps you could suggest a discussion forum where I could find those more inclined to discuss these things? Personally, I never tire of explaining by beliefs because I genuinely think that it's important to spread the truth....but I'll accept that isn't for everyone. I simply thought you'd be more open to discussion on the topic since you created this thread.

 

[Ana the Ist]

See my earlier post:
New York Magazine: Donald Trump’s Race War

We = our society / nation / government.

Ok...to be fair though "we" haven't done that in a long long time. I think it would be rather difficult to tie anyone's current situation to what happened back then.

In this thread, it's primarily Tull. But this has been a popular opinion among conservatives for decades. I remember hearing this as a kid in the early-mid 90s.

I see....and assuming that some here hold such a view still, what exactly is your objection to it? I'm aware that everyone won't be able to pull themselves up from poverty to become a neurosurgeon and political figure like Ben Carson....but is it unreasonable to think that by making smart choices and working hard someone can be able to improve their lot in life?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ok...to be fair though "we" haven't done that in a long long time.

"We" legally sanctioned it and openly engaged in it until the 60's, at which point it became illegal but didn't go away. Redlining still happens. Abuse by law enforcement still happens. Disinvestment by city officials still happens.

I think it would be rather difficult to tie anyone's current situation to what happened back then.

This was only a few decades ago. I'm only 35, but my parents were in high school when it became illegal to not hire someone because of the color of their skin. I can personally tie loads of things about my current situation to stuff that happened "back then", and I've spent a fair amount of energy deliberately trying to correct some of my parents' mistakes, and I didn't even have anything really bad to get over.

I see....and assuming that some here hold such a view still, what exactly is your objection to it? I'm aware that everyone won't be able to pull themselves up from poverty to become a neurosurgeon and political figure like Ben Carson....but is it unreasonable to think that by making smart choices and working hard someone can be able to improve their lot in life?

I think it depends on who you're talking to and what you're talking about. If you're addressing an individual, then yeah - you can look at ways they can help themselves. But if you're drawing conclusions about a population, I don't think it's terribly helpful, particularly if you're holding that population to a higher standard than you hold other groups.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"We" legally sanctioned it and openly engaged in it until the 60's, at which point it became illegal but didn't go away. Redlining still happens. Abuse by law enforcement still happens. Disinvestment by city officials still happens.

The post you wrote that I originally replied was didn't mention "redlining" or "divestment"....it claimed that "we" beat, abused, and murdered blacks for centuries.

Now, I'm pretty certain you aren't claiming that it's only been illegal to beat /murder blacks since the 1960s....that would be dumb. Abuse is a rather subjective word so I'll consider that blacks have been abused (just like whites, asians, latinos, etc) but not by the government.

Since you're bringing up redlining and divestment now....are you walking back your earlier statements about beatings and murder?

This was only a few decades ago. I'm only 35, but my parents were in high school when it became illegal to not hire someone because of the color of their skin. I can personally tie loads of things about my current situation to stuff that happened "back then", and I've spent a fair amount of energy deliberately trying to correct some of my parents' mistakes, and I didn't even have anything really bad to get over.

So you're 35....your parents were in high school when anti-discrimination laws were passed regarding hiring. So unless your parents had you in their mid-late teens....we're talking about 5-6 decades ago. So my point, which still stands, is that discriminatory hiring practices haven't stopped anyone under 60 (roughly) from getting a job.

I think it depends on who you're talking to and what you're talking about. If you're addressing an individual, then yeah - you can look at ways they can help themselves. But if you're drawing conclusions about a population, I don't think it's terribly helpful, particularly if you're holding that population to a higher standard than you hold other groups.

Aren't we always addressing the individual in these discussions? You can provide an endless amount of opportunities for a group of people....but if individuals within that group don't take advantage of those opportunities, they'll go nowhere in life.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The post you wrote that I originally replied was didn't mention "redlining" or "divestment"....it claimed that "we" beat, abused, and murdered blacks for centuries.

Now, I'm pretty certain you aren't claiming that it's only been illegal to beat /murder blacks since the 1960s....that would be dumb. Abuse is a rather subjective word so I'll consider that blacks have been abused (just like whites, asians, latinos, etc) but not by the government.

Since you're bringing up redlining and divestment now....are you walking back your earlier statements about beatings and murder?

No, I'm using the word "abuse" in a broad sense. Redlining is abuse. Systemic disinvestment is abuse. Racial profiling by police is abuse.

So you're 35....your parents were in high school when anti-discrimination laws were passed regarding hiring. So unless your parents had you in their mid-late teens....we're talking about 5-6 decades ago. So my point, which still stands, is that discriminatory hiring practices haven't stopped anyone under 60 (roughly) from getting a job.

How quickly after prohibition was enacted did alcohol disappear? How long did it take for heroine and crack to be eradicated once banned? Kiddy inappropriate content?

Oh, right.

The fact that racial discrimination in hiring was finally made illegal in the mid 60's doesn't mean that it automatically went away. If you want a clear example of gender bias existing long after the civil rights law was passed:

Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind” Auditions on Female Musicians

Once orchestras started holding blind auditions where judges were unable to determine the gender of the performer, the number of women they hired grew significantly. But this didn't start until some years after discrimination became illegal. And it's something of a quirk of that industry that they can even consider hiring people without speaking to them or seeing them. If that sort of discrimination continued to exist in the music world after it became illegal, what makes you think similar biases don't continue to manifest themselves in other workplaces?

Aren't we always addressing the individual in these discussions?

No. I was talking to Tull. I'm white; I assume he's white. In addressing each other, neither of us was talking to the individual in question. We were talking about some hypothetical "other", and there was much in Tull's language that was directed towards a group.

 

[morningstar2651]

I lived and worked in Arizona for five years. Cops don't enforce immigration laws. So if a cop is going to call a customs or border patrol agent to a stop because they suspect that the person they stopped is in the U.S. illegally...they either had better be very sure, or the agents need be relatively close. If they have to wait 45mins+ to have an agent arrive....and the person is there legally...then they've opened themselves up to a very possible lawsuit which they'll likely lose (for unreasonable detention over a law they don't enforce). I don't know what the nearest station to Guadalupe is (Casa Grande? Phoenix?)....but it seems far more likely that you were stopped for other reasons.

Also...if the officer couldn't tell your race when he stopped you, it's rather odd that you think race would be the reason he stopped you.



To my knowledge, SB1070 only allows state police to inquire about immigration status (not stop people for it) not local police. It definitely doesn't allow them to stop people solely for the purpose of conducting immigration checks (this was a misconception spread by the left when it was passed). I don't know if it was state or local police that you dealt with...I'm just saying that if it wasn't a highway you were pulled over on, it seems more likely it was local or county sheriffs.

I was driving through a predominantly Mexican neighborhood and violated no laws. I'm sure he had the best intentions when he pulled me over and fabricated an excuse for pulling someone over. I'm sure you know the events better than I because you lived in Arizona once. By the way, Guadalupe is in the Phoenix metro area.

The officer likely couldn't see my race while I was driving, which would explain why he was targeting drivers in a predominantly Mexican neighborhood at night. He has a 75%+ chance of pulling over a Mexican.

I love that you're trying to defend this officer's actions and find excuses.

 

[rambot]

Because we can legally get away with having organizations closed to other races without the fear of being called racist.

That's not their raison d'etre though. And that is the question.

Because if you knew the answer, you'd have an broader understanding of race and cultural issues than you do. Hint: The answer is not specific to America.

When I lived in South Korea, "waygooks" frequently hung out in their own insular communities; some of which were formalized into organizations. There is a reason for that.

 

[morningstar2651]

Cops don't enforce immigration laws.

To my knowledge, SB1070 only allows state police to inquire about immigration status (not stop people for it) not local police. It definitely doesn't allow them to stop people solely for the purpose of conducting immigration checks (this was a misconception spread by the left when it was passed).

Your knowledge on this subject is incorrect. They didn't say they stopped me for "being Mexican", but that's the unofficial reason since there was only a fabricated reason for the stop. The officer could defend his racial profiling by claiming "I couldn't see the driver's race at night" - a true statement, but targeting a Mexican neighborhood for random stops is definitely racial profiling.

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

Also, it's really not up for debate whether or not there were immigration patrols in the Phoenix metro area.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio to face criminal charges for immigration patrols

PHOENIX — Prosecutors said Tuesday they will charge Sheriff Joe Arpaio with criminal contempt-of-court for defying a judge’s orders to end his signature immigration patrols in Arizona, exposing the 84-year-old lawman to the possibility of jail time.