Uh huh...and you're aware how severely limited your view is, right?
I don't know if it's "severely" limited, but I will admit I don't see everything.
If you feel my observations are wrong, feel free to show me how.
I would say that there is racism...it's not as pervasive nor oppressive as it used to be.
True enough. I believe I made the same point as well.
Of course there are some inequalities due to race...just like there are inequalities due to attractiveness, weight, height, gender, sex, orientation, etc etc. There are advantages and disadvantages to them all. I suppose what I don't understand is the incessant bleating of some groups about their disadvantages...that, as a white hetero male, I'm expected to do something about it.
My point is that we all should do something about it. I never singled white hetero males out.
But, that being said, wouldn't you agree that if we're trying to effect positive change in hiring, say, wouldn't it be incumbent upon those who do the hiring to be involved? If a large number of employers are white hetero males, then they would naturally be part of the discussion.
Bill Maher had a good little rant about this recently...did you happen to see it?
Nope, sorry.
Part of the problem is that for so long it has been accepted that white men are the cause of so much inequality in our society...it's become completely acceptable to blame them for anything, regardless of whether they are the cause of the problem or not. People are so afraid of appearing racist...they don't even challenge the notion that it's the fault of white men/people....they simply agree just to conform.
That could very well be a large part of the reason why I've been going out of my way not to assign blame.
Except for some things....like the black crime rate.
Are you contending that it's increased over time? I'd like to see the statistics you're basing that on.
Indeed...we have gained equality under the law. Now what?
We have the promise of equality under the law, sure. Let's make it more of a reality. After that, let's see what else we can fix, and work on that.
The goal is a more perfect union, the closer we get to that, the better, in my book.
To be fair...it was a lot easier to recognize that laws which treated minorities differently were the problem. Now that we've (mostly) eliminated those...where else do you want to go? I keep asking you that and your vague answers like "forward" don't explain anything.
We've eliminated laws that specifically made blacks unequal....and now we're working on the systemic bias that makes them unequal. The more we eliminate that, the better.
If it seems as if I'm vague, that's only because we're dealing with something that isn'e quantifiable. More equal is better than less, but I can't put a number on it, so I can't say how much more is needed.
It makes me miss old civil rights activists who actually told you which laws they wanted changed and why. Now it's just "my life is difficult...must be your fault".
Which is, again, why I steadfastly refuse to assign blame. As I've said a few times already, it's counterproductive. And you've just illustrated why.
Actually I said "common" not "white"....I've no doubt that someone named River Thames probably has all kinds of problems related to their name.
Maybe so, but the most common names in the US tend to be white names, on average. For example, in 1976, the most popular baby names were: Michael, Jason, Christopher, David, James, John, Robert, Brian, Matthew and Daniel for boys; girls: Jennifer, Amy, Melissa, Heather, Angela, Michelle, Kimberly, Jessica, Lisa, Amanda. (I picked 1976 because that would make these people around 40 yrs old, and more likely to be positions of authority).
Let's pretend that you have a point though, and a "white" name gives you better chances at success. So what? The whiteness of your name is probably way down on a list of aspects that will determine your success in life. It's certainly behind your wealth, education, your appearance, intelligence, weight, height, attitude, etcetera....
No doubt it should be. But if having a name that isn't white doesn't even get your resume seen, those other factors don't make a difference.
Yet you keep bringing up white privilege.
To be fair, I didn't bring it up. The OP did. But it is the subject of this thread.
Maybe a lot....maybe nothing at all.
Not sure how it could mean nothing at all....looking around you and not seeing anyone who looks like you, who shares your background, in a large picture of the country you live in. Granted, it might discourage you from even trying to participate in the country beyond your own neighborhood, or it might push you out into the world to BE an example for other kids like you...but either way, it would mean
something.
So you're all for widespread cultural manipulation through use of media?
If by "for" you mean do I acknowledge that's how the media works, then sure.
But you're dissin' my man Idris! Can you at least admit, whether he gets the part or not, he'd still make an excellent James Bond?
Maybe you missed the part where I said it's "The Cosby Show"...which is traditionally about an affluent black family. Would it still be good to defy that tradition? Would it be good to change what everyone traditionally thinks of when they think of the Cosby's?
I'm still not seeing how taking something that has traditionally been black and using white performers instead is defying tradition, given things like minstrel shows, Elvis, Led Zeppelin, etc.
Because if it is, then I totally understand what you're saying...even if I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with keeping the Cosby's black and James Bond white.
There is one significant difference here, though: Bill Cosby is a black man. James Bond is a fictional character who could be black, or white. In fact, I have read a couple of Ian Fleming's novels, and I don't recall him specifying Bond's race one way or the other.
But if you think it's good to challenge these "traditional" views of characters...maybe I can get rich by casting an all white version of The Wire lol.
Go for it. Let me know how it works out for ya.
Nice dodge. Wanna guess what kind of assumptions readers make when they see you dodge a question?
They can make whatever ones they like.
Or would you just like to answer?
I think I'll pass on that. I'd rather discuss the issue at hand rather than my personal life.
You answer was simply about how it's deeper than race....Yet without any single example of what you meant by that.
I gave a few. Let me quote:
Because race is a cultural concept, not a biological difference. As such, we bring into the concept things like stereotypes, cultural differences, and class distinctions. Race is only part of a larger picture...but since skin color is one of the more obvious differences between individuals, it often becomes the focus point.
It honestly doesn't matter anymore. I'll let you dodge this one.
I tried to answer as best I could. Sorry if it wasn't enough for you. What more do you need to know?
To paraphrase you...that's my assessment of what you wrote.
Then you ignored what I actually said.
What did you mean then when you wrote about how police view black and white crime differently? In what way? I'd like an example....and one related to race, not wealth like your last example was.
I offered one earlier: my friend the black surgeon. He's been stopped over 30 times in his life, I've been stopped maybe two or three times.
Sure...now that you've had time, what do you think? Do you think that the way blacks view police is accurate or distorted?
Dude, give me a break. I have those studies bookmarked, I'll check 'em out when I can, okay?
But if you have specific data you want to discuss, feel free to present that information and I'll discuss it as best I can.
My guess is they're trying desperately to appease those who view them as racist or against women. I'd say the long term effects of hiring according to race or gender instead of ability would be an overall weakening of whatever business or institution is doing the hiring...until it fails utterly.
Even a big institution...like ancient Rome...can't continue to suffer an endless stream of incompetent rulers without falling apart.
True. Which is why we should be striving for competent rulers WITHOUT using race as the sole determiner of competence...or even a significant one. Just as an example, do you think that Barack Obama is the first black man in the history of the US qualified to be president? Could there have been others before him? Why didn't they get elected?
Before you say "because they didn't run," think about
why they didn't.
Actual numbers...don't see why percentages would matter in this situation. Let's assume a couple things...let's assume that whites and blacks commit crimes at the same rate, regardless of who gets convicted. It's 50% for both races...let's assume that, ok?
Let's also assume that there's 1 million whites in poverty and 1 million blacks in poverty in some city. The police patrol these poor areas equally. We would expect roughly equal outcomes...right? Roughly the same number of blacks and whites in prison if the police were fair....right?
Except that we have over double the number of whites in poverty as we do blacks. Ok. So if it's poverty...then we should see more whites convicted of crimes. We don't though...we see more blacks than whites, even though they're a minority both in and out of poverty.
Well maybe the police are horribly racist, right? If blacks and whites are committing crimes at the same rate....and more blacks are convicted despite the fact that there's less of them in poverty....then maybe the police just ignore white crimes?
Or maybe they actually patrol black neighborhoods more because they believe blacks are more likely to commit crimes. In that case, they'd catch more, and the prophecy is self-fulfilled.
(Heck, a former presidential contender believes this is how things should be done, at least as regards muslim neighborhoods, but I digress...)
Except that there's actually more unsolved crimes in black communities than whites lol. At this point, we can be reasonably sure it isn't just race....or poverty...that account for these numbers. No...at this point, the most likely explanation is that blacks actually commit crimes at a higher rate than whites.
Even if true (a BIG if), it doesn't follow that any black person is more likely to be a criminal than any white person.
?? How?
Yeah, and if you read my explanation above....you'll understand what part of the equation is unequal. It's the rate at which blacks commit crimes.
We're still talking more blacks arrested, which is not the same thing as saying more blacks committed crimes. We have no information about crimes where the perpetrator wasn't found....for either blacks or whites.
Your equation is based on incomplete information, so it's accuracy is questionable.
See above. At this point we should be discussing why it is that blacks commit so many more crimes than whites or even other minorities?
So discuss it. Why do you think?
We aren't talking about one fire though....it's millions and millions of blacks that are the ones complaining they are on fire.
All the more reason to not assume there's only one cause behind it all. And even more reason to do something about it rather than debate endlessly the possible causes until we've come to a definitive concensus on that.
It would need to happen on both sides though. It does little good for only whites to change their view of blacks...if blacks don't change their view of whites.
Which is one reason why I never limited my suggestions or ideas to white people only.
Awesome. So realistically, white sounding names have as much difficulty finding employment amongst black employers...right? That logically follows, doesn't it?
Nope.
There's lots of ways to leave society better off. Roughly 1 in 3 people died during the black plague....but when it was over, everyone in society had more wealth, resources, opportunities, access, etc.
Are you tryhing to argue that we need a new bubonic plague? If not, I'm unclear on the point you're trying to make.
If you're suggesting methods to use in order to leave society better off...um, maybe you should keep thinking about it.
What does that mean to you? For a society?
It means a lot of things, but in this case, less inequality due to racial bias.
RTurner literally just described U.S. race relations "throughout history" as white masters and black slaves. Even if he isn't black...it's a sentiment I've heard from plenty of blacks. So while their view of whites may not have gotten any worse...it certainly hasn't improved much, if at all. Progress in race relations needs to be a two way dance...it won't ever work in just one direction.
You might have a point, IF that represents the view of a large majority of blacks toward whites.
Does it?
-- A2SG, not sure it does, but if you want to make the case, feel free....
