Racism on display at University of Virginia

[Ken-1122]

Say what?

I said black people are not a part of a marginalized group. IOW Black people have not been rendered powerless and insignificant in American society.

In addition to the job competition examples given by @ThatRobGuy, whites also enjoyed advantages (i.e. less competition) in a variety of other areas. While those advantages may not have guaranteed any one white person's success, they certainly provide a leg up to those given preferential treatment for things like access to and valuation of housing, access to and pricing of financing, access to education and lucrative employment, and favorable treatment from law enforcement and politicians.

White people had no more access to those things back then than what everybody has now.

I agree, but I think in ways you might not. As anti-black discrimination shifted from being overtly targeted at blacks to being more targeted at poverty in general, austerity policies favored by (typically conservative) whites started catching more and more whites. It's no coincidence that the regions of this country with the worst histories of depriving blacks of access to society now also have the weakest safety nets for poor whites, too.

It's not like when Jim Crow was abolished, all of a sudden, they started having poor white people in the South, they had the poorest white people even back then.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I said black people are not a part of a marginalized group. IOW Black people have not been rendered powerless and insignificant in American society.

Do you mean ever? Or do you only mean right now?

White people had no more access to those things back then than what everybody has now.

Whether or not their absolute degrees of access was higher then than they are now, their relative levels of access (i.e. relative to what was afforded blacks) were absolutely higher. That’s how whites were able to build wealth faster than blacks through the second half of the twentieth century.

It's not like when Jim Crow was abolished, all of a sudden, they started having poor white people in the South, they had the poorest white people even back then.

And that was exacerbated by the anti-black policies morphing into anti-poor policies.

 

[Ken-1122]

Do you mean ever? Or do you only mean right now?

Now.

Whether or not their absolute degrees of access was higher then than they are now, their relative levels of access (i.e. relative to what was afforded blacks) were absolutely higher. That’s how whites were able to build wealth faster than blacks through the second half of the twentieth century.

But white people at that time did not become wealthy by discriminating against black people.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Even with veteran cops, a lack of knowledge of the law is commonplace. There's a reason why in order to represent someone in court in legal matters, you need to have a law degree and have passed the bar exam. ...and not just a 5-month peace officer training program.

I wasn't speaking about expertise on the law....I thought that much was obvious for reasons you just outlined.

I was referring to expertise on policing, making arrests, detaining/questioning people....and all of the actual work police do.

For example, if a cop gives testimony stating "based on xyz behaviors I concluded the subject was about to assault me"....it's given the weight of experience.

This isn't the sort of knowledge the average civilian gets to lay claim to. Any competent lawyer would object and state that you couldn't possibly know what the other person was about to do.

There's nothing about a police officers credentials that would suggest that their testimony should be given more weight than that of the person they're against in court.

It depends on specifically what you're testifying about.

I've said multiple times that what she said was wrong.

Well...here's what you said in the first post...

These kinds of "gotcha journalism" moments are examples of people trying to discredit a movement they don't like. (not saying what she said wasn't wrong, but let's not be silly here...it's blatantly obvious what someone's trying to do when they post a video like this on YouTube and says "look at the racism against white people!")

I'll admit you do suggest that what she said was "wrong" but you do so while trying downplay and diminish the racist aspect of it with some conspiracy theories. I don't know what "gotcha" racism is....if people are caught on video acting racist, they're acting racist. I don't recall you ever saying something like this when it's a white person caught on video acting saying racist things.

I'll also point out again that she uploaded the video, that her friend recorded, to both Twitter and YouTube and appeared to be praising herself for her behavior.

Then you said this a couple of posts later...

Like I noted before, she didn't choose her words very well (I stated that in my first post),

This alters what you originally said...because it appears that you don't really see anything wrong with what she said, just the way she said it. When you combine this with all the various justifications you've made for her (the imaginary racism at the school, the possibility that she's experienced racism elsewhere, the fact that other black people have experienced racism, etc) and it seems less like you think she did something wrong and more like she's justified in her behavior.

It's all that, plus the repeated avoidance of calling this incident racism, that makes your position confusing.

I'll take your word that you meant to say you think she was wrong to say what she did. I do want to know though, do you think it was racist (not just wrong)?

...but the explanation "that I keep going further into" to explain varying levels of anger are an important part of the discussion. Nuance seems to be escaping folks (not directing that at you).

Many students at that university (if they've been there for more than 2 years) haven't just experienced hypothetical "distant history" racism...they had a front row seat for the "Unite the Right" rally that took place there not long ago that culminated in a white supremacist firing a gun into a crowd, and another running down people with a car.

Yeah, if she was there longer than 2 years....and if she attended the event herself. What I don't understand is why we're making that assumption?

It sounds like you're trying to say that it's not a big deal if she's racially discriminating against people because she's experienced racism. That's a rather ridiculous idea....isn't it? All the white people in the MSC that day experienced racism as well....would they be justified in being racist towards black people from then on?

Many of the same folks who desperately tried to find reasons why that event "wasn't all that bad" (or tried to dismiss the outrage over it...the whole "good and bad people on both sides" trope) are seemingly more agitated about this girl saying something mean on a cell phone video than people marching around a college town with swastika & confederate flags, and guns.

Well...for starters...I don't recall anyone denying that the Unite the Right rally was racist and wrong...even the president. If we're talking about political figures, I think literally every Republican in Washington denounced it. As for people on this forum...I honestly don't recall anyone saying that it wasn't racist or that they agreed with the views of the people at the rally. I think the main disagreement between people was regarding the violence. Some people thought all of the violence was wrong...that nobody should be attacked, shot at, killed, or otherwise assaulted for expressing their beliefs. That was my position and I still hold it. If the girl in the OP was assaulted for what she said, I would definitely say that was wrong as well.

Then there was another group of people who argued that it's entirely acceptable to attack people for their beliefs....particularly when they're exercising their freedom of speech. They seemed to think it's more important to stop people from speaking their minds.

I think that's reflective of the environment these kids are dealing with...where they're being held to this sterling level of anti-bigotry standard "otherwise you're the ones who are racists", but when instances of racism are occurring that target their community, they're supposed to just keep they're supposed to just take it on the chin, and keep quiet about it in the name of "progress".

You may recall that I made a list earlier about what I considered to be the varying degrees of harmful racism. I think people expressing racist beliefs is bad....but I certainly don't think it's worth hurting anyone over and certainly not worth dying over.

I also think racial discrimination is worse...that is, denying someone access or an opportunity because of their race. I would be surprised if you didn't agree.

So, to clarify again, what she said can certainly be viewed as racist, I acknowledged that.

But do you think it's racist?

But what needs to be acknowledged from other folks is that unaddressed (or under-addressed) racism coming from the other side can create "reverse racism" if left unchecked for long enough.

It's just racism. I agree that experiencing racism can make someone racist....but I don't ever think that's a valid excuse for being racist. It's worth pointing out that the Unite the Right rally happened because those white people felt they were under attack by a bunch of people who wanted to tear down statues of their white ancestors....and I'm certain you don't believe that justifies their racism.

Just like the two little siblings example I mentioned before. All hitting is wrong, but if one kid is hitting the other one repeatedly, and mom either ignores it, or barely punishes the kid for it, it's only a matter of time before the other kid starts reacting with similar behavior.

You mentioned the "racist attack" against a student that led to the creation of the MSC in your first few posts. I think your point was that it had something to do with the racial environment at the university as well as the intention of creating the MSC. Did you look into the incident at all? If you didn't, here's the info....

The victim, Daisy, was running for student body president and just days before the election...she pulls into the parking lot outside her dorm and a "white man" runs up to her car window, grabs her head and slams it against the steering wheel, says something about "we don't want any (insert racial slur) for student president!", then runs off into the night....

Nobody saw the attack, her friend in her dorm was the first person she told. She didn't get a good look at him, but believed he was a student (given his interest in the election). There was a police and FBI investigation that yielded nothing, as well as a 20,000$+ reward that went nowhere. She did however, get a massive show of support from the students and university and her opponent dropped from the race immediately making her the de facto president. The MSC and several other pro-diversity/multicultural programs were started....including several jobs, one of which she held (maybe still does) were also created. All in all, the "hate crime" turned out to be extremely fortuitous for her and other "marginalized students".

It wouldn't be till sometime later....when fears of being labeled racist died down....that it seems some students seriously questioned whether this "attack" ever happened at all. This was written in 2011....

Diversity, Honor and Double Standards at UVa - Minding The Campus

I suggest you read the whole thing. In it, a former student writes about another hoax where a black student named John Perkins...whose father is some civil rights author...writes some passionate letter to the university magazine detailing how he was racially profiled and harassed by UVA police. The claim was investigated, and it turned out he made the whole thing up.

This is well before the days of Twitter and Smollett. The author harkens back to the Daisy case and how many students would later admit it seemed like a hoax. He ties it all into the university Honor Code (a sort of student conduct code) and how despite having a disproportionately large number of violations from black students, they seem to be held to a much more forgiving and gentler standard.

He also relates to another black student who was student president at another university and also the "victim" of a mysterious noose hate crime that was also never solved. He and Perkins were friends....and he was punished for stalking an ex girlfriend. On top of all this, there was a series of attacks on white students at UVA by black students....

"over a year before the Lundy affair by the University’s contrasting response to a series of attacks by ten black Charlottesville students against whites (plus two Asians, who I think were collateral damage) that lasted over five months. Although several of the students confessed that they had selected their victims because they were (or they thought they were) white, no hate crime charges were filed, no candlelight vigils were held. Rev. Alvin Edwards, a former mayor of Charlottesville, raised over $3000 at bake sales, all of which was to go to the legal defense of the assailants until criticism caused 30% to be donated for the victims’ medical expenses."

Now, it's remarkable how similar the justification for the double standards are to the justifications you've laid out. If you're still concerned about equal opportunities and access...

"A 2004 study, for example, found that “nearly 65% of all black applicants were admitted to UVa in the Fall of 2003 compared to 36 to 38% of all other groups.” A 1999 study by the Center for Equal Opportunity found that the relative odds of admission for blacks over whites, controlling for test scores, rank in class, and legacy and state residence status was 111 to 1."

All I would suggest is that perhaps the narrative that you believe has been distorted from the truth a little and if we really want people to be equal....we have to treat them equally. You can't hold different races to different standards and hope that it will all just work out one day.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You cannot fight racism with racism, this is a sad fact lost today and its time to put a stop to all divisive rhetoric, be it from the likes of Trump/MAGA crowd or from the so called "progressives" (not actual progressives who strive for an actual better society), of course there is equivelent politics here in the UK also.

There's two different "battles" to be fought, so to speak.

There's the battle against racism itself...
And then there's the battle of trying to correct for the outcomes that past racism have caused and get everyone back on pace to having truly "equal opportunity".

Saying "all racism is bad, and we just need to reinforce that idea moving forward" addresses the former, but not the latter.

It's easy to say "well, we just need to make sure we fight all racism moving forward" after one group has already disproportionately benefited from it, but that does nothing to help the group that has already disproportionately suffered from it.

If you start a marathon and some people are allowed to take a 20 minute head start and other people aren't, its unreasonable to surmise that it's 100% "on them" to make up that difference and condescend to them about how "if you're not in the lead, that's because you're not trying hard enough".

"Moving forward"-style policies are, by their very nature, expecting one group to have to over-achieve in order to have the same things that everyone else gets to have by default...which would be a clear cut case of inequality.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll admit you do suggest that what she said was "wrong" but you do so while trying downplay and diminish the racist aspect of it with some conspiracy theories. I don't know what "gotcha" racism is....if people are caught on video acting racist, they're acting racist. I don't recall you ever saying something like this when it's a white person caught on video acting saying racist things.

My goal isn't to diminish, it's to explain the underlying causes and motivations.

I'll take your word that you meant to say you think she was wrong to say what she did. I do want to know though, do you think it was racist (not just wrong)?

But do you think it's racist?

Yes

But much like other societal infractions, not all racism is created equal.

I think that a person who starts a drunken bar fight, and a father who tracks down his daughter's rapist after they get out of jail and roughs them up, are both guilty of assault.

I don't think both forms of assault should be considered as being "the exact same thing".

That's not a double standard, that's just acknowledging circumstance and nuance.

It's just racism. I agree that experiencing racism can make someone racist....but I don't ever think that's a valid excuse for being racist. It's worth pointing out that the Unite the Right rally happened because those white people felt they were under attack by a bunch of people who wanted to tear down statues of their white ancestors....and I'm certain you don't believe that justifies their racism.

Most of the people who attended that rally didn't have any ancestors that were in the civil war on the confederate side.

Further more, if it were really about paying homage to ancestors who "fought for something", I think it's far more likely that more of those folks (carrying the swastikas and confederate flags) had ancestors who fought in WW2, against the Nazi's, than ones who had ancestors who fought on the confederate side of the civil war.

It would seem that their "pay tribute to my relatives who fought in a war" justification skipped a few generations.

It's just racism. I agree that experiencing racism can make someone racist....but I don't ever think that's a valid excuse for being racist.

It's not that clear cut.

If I spent years doling out unprovoked attacks on someone, and they decided to finally strike back, you may not feel that my years of abusing the other person is a valid excuse for them punching me...but it at least has to be acknowledged that it's coming from a different place than a completely unprovoked attack.



Again, we can agree to disagree on this point, but I don't feel that all forms of racism should be judged under the same lens, much like many other societal infractions.

A CEO who embezzles funds from the employee pension fund to give himself a bonus, and a poor mom who's broke, who shoplifts some food items to give her hungry kids are both guilty of "theft" and "all theft is wrong"...however, it'd be disingenuous to pretend as if those two occurrences were "exactly the same"

The reality is, until we reach the place where there's true 100% systemic and societal equality (and we're still a few generations away from that), black on white racism isn't going to be considered to be as bad or impactful as white on black racism.

While both are wrong, both don't have the same societal impact.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It does...if police officers are willing to look the other way on infractions during official stops. Do you really think they're going to not do the same in matter where they're both on the job and one acts unethically?

It's a ridiculous assertion. It's like saying that you're the prime suspect of embezzling 300k$ from your employer because you once stole a candy bar from a gas station.

Based on the police survey data, that attitude is shared by over 1/3 of the people in that profession, so he's not alone.

1/3rd of cops believe that the police academy should train police to not ticket other police??

Many times *snip*

Many times? I don't know what that means in practical terms....

You could be talking about 1 in 3 cops who get fired or 1 in 100.

Police Internal Affairs Duty Is Unpopular, a Survey Shows

Couldn't read the article....nor could I find a relevant survey more recent than 20 years ago.

I did find some interesting surveys though...including one that showed that even when stopped by a police officer of a different race, 75% of drivers believed the reason why they were stopped was legitimate.

 

[Ana the Ist]

My goal isn't to diminish, it's to explain the underlying causes and motivations.

You don't know any underlying causes or motivations though. You're just making guesses.

Yes

But much like other societal infractions, not all racism is created equal.

I acknowledged this. Saying something racist to someone isn't as bad as denying them a job.

I think that a person who starts a drunken bar fight, and a father who tracks down his daughter's rapist after they get out of jail and roughs them up, are both guilty of assault.

I don't think both forms of assault should be considered as being "the exact same thing".

That's why we have sentencing ranges and judges are given discretion to sentence convicts accordingly.

The problem with this analogy is that it sounds like you believe that racist black people are motivated by some wrong done to them....a sort of revenge racism. White people on the other hand are just racist because they're bad people (akin to those who start drunken bar fights).

The obvious flaw with this is you have no idea what someone's experiences are. If someone was bullied by a black student all through high school because of their race...does that suddenly cast their racism towards blacks in a different light?

That's not a double standard, that's just acknowledging circumstance and nuance.

Again, you don't know anyone's circumstances or experiences....you just know what race they are.

How do you know that every one of those white guys at the Unite the Right rally wasn't the victim of racist jews? You don't....

You'd have to be making widespread generalizations about people based on nothing more than their race.

Most of the people who attended that rally didn't have any ancestors that were in the civil war on the confederate side.

How do you know?

Further more, if it were really about paying homage to ancestors who "fought for something", I think it's far more likely that more of those folks (carrying the swastikas and confederate flags) had ancestors who fought in WW2, against the Nazi's, than ones who had ancestors who fought on the confederate side of the civil war.

It's possible....but why assume?

It would seem that their "pay tribute to my relatives who fought in a war" justification skipped a few generations.

I think you're missing the point....

The morality of someone's behavior doesn't change based upon what race they are. That's literally one of the oldest racist beliefs there is.

It's not that clear cut.

It really is. If you want to say that calling someone a racist name isn't as bad or as big of a problem as deny someone a job because of their race....that's understandable. It has to do with circumstances.

If you're judging the same behavior differently because it was done by two people of different races....that's just moral racism.

Imagine two people in a drunken bar fight...let's imagine they're both guilty of the same thing. One is white and one is black. They both got drunk and beat up a third person.

Now imagine that the judge sentences the white guy to 1 month in jail....and the black guy to 5 months. When they ask the judge why....he responds with some justifications based on assumptions he's made about them regarding their races.

Is he being nuanced? Or is he just making racist assumptions to justify his double standards?

Again, we can agree to disagree on this point, but I don't feel that all forms of racism should be judged under the same lens, much like many other societal infractions.

The girl in the OP isn't engaging in some magically different form of racism....she's discriminating against a race.

A CEO who embezzles funds from the employee pension fund to give himself a bonus, and a poor mom who's broke, who shoplifts some food items to give her hungry kids are both guilty of "theft" and "all theft is wrong"...however, it'd be disingenuous to pretend as if those two occurrences were "exactly the same"

Those are people from different circumstances ...not different races. The only analogy here would be two broke moms are shoplifting....one is black and one is white. Are they guilty of the same thing or is one of them more justified because of their race?

The reality is, until we reach the place where there's true 100% systemic and societal equality (and we're still a few generations away from that), black on white racism isn't going to be considered to be as bad or impactful as white on black racism.

Lol still a few generations away from that? There's never been 100% systemic and societal equality! There never has been throughout the whole of history!

There's literally no philosopher or sociologist or economist who would suggest that if not for bigotry....everything would be equal between everyone.

 

[Ken-1122]

There's two different "battles" to be fought, so to speak.

There's the battle against racism itself...
And then there's the battle of trying to correct for the outcomes that past racism have caused and get everyone back on pace to having truly "equal opportunity".

Saying "all racism is bad, and we just need to reinforce that idea moving forward" addresses the former, but not the latter.

The girl in the video is doing nothing to address the latter either, she is doing nothing to correct the outcomes that past racism has caused, all she is doing is doing is being racist and divisive; and that's why you need to quit defending her.

 

[rjs330]

If you look at sociological data, it's the other way around. Growing up in a poverty stricken environment does increase the likelihood of bad behavior as a side effect, the poverty is not the result of bad behavior. Not sure where you got the idea in bold above, but it's factually incorrect.

There are not large numbers of middle class people becoming poor because they committed crimes, and low income communities certainly aren't filled with former middle class people who got busted.
The Poverty-Crime Connection

Anyone who says that "dealing drugs makes you more money than working" is clearly misinformed on that topic. Street level dealers aren't living the Escobar life.

Your average street level dealer who works for himself makes about $20k/year
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittVenkateshAnEconomicAnalysis2000.pdf

...about $10-15k if they work for someone else and have higher level people they have to answer to.

When you grow up in an environment with fewer options (this goes for all races when it comes to poverty), certain paths (that most people wouldn't ever consider) become more appealing.

Actually the facts are there is more crime in poorer neighborhoods. What is incorrect is the reason for the crime. Being poor does not create bad character. Crime creates poverty and keeps poor neighborhoods poor. High crime drives businesses out that are needed to create jobs. It destabilizes neighborhoods and drives people away. Criminal behavior creates fear and keeps people and business from wanting to invest in a neighborhood.

We as humans beings can absolutely be poor and not commit crime. Good character is not owned by the middle class and certainly not by the wealthy.

And you can't say poverty causes crime. The poor in America aren't all that poor.

Over 99 percent have a refrigerator, television, and stove or oven. Eighty-one percent have a microwave; 75 percent have air conditioning; 67 percent have a second TV; 64 percent have a clothes washer; 38 percent have a personal computer.

As for homelessness, one-half of 1 percent living under the poverty line have lost their homes and live in shelters.

Seventy-five percent of the poor have a car or truck. Only 10 percent live in mobile homes or trailers, half live in detached single-family houses or townhouses, and 40 percent live in apartments. Forty-two percent of all poor households own their home, the average of which is a three-bedroom house with one and a half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

According to a recent Census Bureau report, 80.9 percent of households below the poverty level have cell phones.

So, while there is a corolation between being poor and crime, it's not the cause and effect the progressives would like us to believe. Because if the poor were just committing crimes to survive we would see more things stolen that are survival items. However most things stolen are alcohol, makeup, electronic accessories, fashion accessories, sportswear, Lingerie, DVDs and things like that.

And the other thing to point out is that the poor don't really steal more than anyone else. It's more serious and violent crimes that the poor suffer and are involved in, and drug related crimes.

That's bad character.

The cause of crime overall is just flat bad character. And it's this kind of character that keeps poorer neighborhoods poor. If these places could cut down on crime then more businesses would come in and provide more opportunities.

So no poverty does not cause crime.

 

[rjs330]

There's two different "battles" to be fought, so to speak.

There's the battle against racism itself...
And then there's the battle of trying to correct for the outcomes that past racism have caused and get everyone back on pace to having truly "equal opportunity".

Saying "all racism is bad, and we just need to reinforce that idea moving forward" addresses the former, but not the latter.

It's easy to say "well, we just need to make sure we fight all racism moving forward" after one group has already disproportionately benefited from it, but that does nothing to help the group that has already disproportionately suffered from it.

If you start a marathon and some people are allowed to take a 20 minute head start and other people aren't, its unreasonable to surmise that it's 100% "on them" to make up that difference and condescend to them about how "if you're not in the lead, that's because you're not trying hard enough".

"Moving forward"-style policies are, by their very nature, expecting one group to have to over-achieve in order to have the same things that everyone else gets to have by default...which would be a clear cut case of inequality.

So what opportunities are out there that don't have access to that other races do?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

So what opportunities are out there that don't have access to that other races do?

Any opportunity that's contingent on parental financial status.

Given that it takes 5 generations to overcome extreme poverty, and I think we can agree there were policies (and overall societal racism) that contributed to certain groups of people being disproportionately in that category within in the last 5 generations, it's reasonable to surmise that things like "being born into a family that can afford to live in a decent school district", "having parents that can afford to send you to college", "living in an area where decent jobs are more attainable" would be just a few examples.

I don't think it's any big secret, or anything controversial, to suggest that a kid born in the inner city, in a low-income family, has less opportunities, overall, than a upper middle class kid born in the suburbs.

...and policies and societal practices that have happened within the last 5 generations have created an environment in which that disproportionately affects certain races more than others.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Actually the facts are there is more crime in poorer neighborhoods. What is incorrect is the reason for the crime. Being poor does not create bad character. Crime creates poverty and keeps poor neighborhoods poor. High crime drives businesses out that are needed to create jobs. It destabilizes neighborhoods and drives people away. Criminal behavior creates fear and keeps people and business from wanting to invest in a neighborhood.

We as humans beings can absolutely be poor and not commit crime. Good character is not owned by the middle class and certainly not by the wealthy.

And you can't say poverty causes crime. The poor in America aren't all that poor.

...that's simply not true.

If you're born into an environment where the schools are lousy, there's no jobs to be had, and your choices are to either go hungry, or engage in less-than-stellar activity in order to get a few bucks, the latter is going to become more tempting.

Good character has little to do with it. Good behavior is what we're talking about.

The two aren't synonymous.

"I'm entitled to a new TV because I want it!, but I don't really want to work hard for it" is an example of bad character...however, that will only manifest itself in the form of bad (illegal) behavior in an environment where a person doesn't have a legal means to make that scenario happen.

For instance:
A kid with parents who have money, who just buys them the TV because they whined long enough and their parents caved, doesn't really have better character than a poor kid who opts to take it...they both wanted the same thing (a new TV without working for it), the spoiled brat-types would be the exact same type of person who would take from someone if there were no other means of getting it, it just so happens that they have parents who can afford to accommodate them so they don't have to resort to taking it from someone else.

People, generally speaking, are as (legally) ethical as their options.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The girl in the video is doing nothing to address the latter either, she is doing nothing to correct the outcomes that past racism has caused, all she is doing is doing is being racist and divisive; and that's why you need to quit defending her.

She's not doing anything to correct it...she's a result of it not being corrected.

If the issues had been corrected, she'd have no reason to hold any animus towards other groups and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Those are people from different circumstances ...not different races. The only analogy here would be two broke moms are shoplifting....one is black and one is white. Are they guilty of the same thing or is one of them more justified because of their race?

...past policies have created a society in which those different circumstances have a high level of overlap with racial differences.

If poverty is the root problem, and it takes 5 generations to correct for that, and there were policies that occurred with in the last 5 generations that put one group in a disproportional state of poverty, then the two can't be totally disassociated for the purposes of this conversation.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's a ridiculous assertion. It's like saying that you're the prime suspect of embezzling 300k$ from your employer because you once stole a candy bar from a gas station.

That's a false equivalence that's attempting to compare "a mountain and a molehill" with "two mountains".

The difference between shoplifting a candy bar and embezzling a quarter of a million dollars is a far greater difference than the notion that a profession (that's primary goal is "law enforcement") shouldn't "enforce the law" when dealing with people who share their profession.

1/3rd of cops believe that the police academy should train police to not ticket other police??

According to the nearly 3,000 cops surveyed, it would seem so...

If they hold the value that "cops shouldn't ticket other cops", I see no reason why they wouldn't feel that should be reinforced during the training period.

 

[rjs330]

Any opportunity that's contingent on parental financial status.

Given that it takes 5 generations to overcome extreme poverty, and I think we can agree there were policies (and overall societal racism) that contributed to certain groups of people being disproportionately in that category within in the last 5 generations, it's reasonable to surmise that things like "being born into a family that can afford to live in a decent school district", "having parents that can afford to send you to college", "living in an area where decent jobs are more attainable" would be just a few examples.

I don't think it's any big secret, or anything controversial, to suggest that a kid born in the inner city, in a low-income family, has less opportunities, overall, than a upper middle class kid born in the suburbs.

...and policies and societal practices that have happened within the last 5 generations have created an environment in which that disproportionately affects certain races more than others.

Please give me a specific example where blacks don't have the same opportunity as whites do because of their race

 

[Ken-1122]

She's not doing anything to correct it...she's a result of it not being corrected.

If the issues had been corrected, she'd have no reason to hold any animus towards other groups and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

That’s her problem. If she is still suffering from the results of past racism, it is up to her to fix it, waiting for the Government, or somebody else to fix her problems will result in her getting nowhere.
Or...... she could just be a hateful bigot and a racist. There are lots of black people who are very successful, are not suffering from past racism, yet they still choose to hate.

 

[Ken-1122]

...and policies and societal practices that have happened within the last 5 generations have created an environment in which that disproportionately affects certain races more than others.

Which policies and societal practices are you referring to?

 

[Ana the Ist]

She's not doing anything to correct it...she's a result of it not being corrected.

If the issues had been corrected, she'd have no reason to hold any animus towards other groups and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

You don't seriously believe that the only reason why a black person would be racist is because of racism they experienced? Racist black people are racist for all of the same reasons as any other race. They aren't morally superior to other races in regards to holding racist beliefs.