Racism on display at University of Virginia

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

I don't think that's entirely a true statement...sure, you may find some who just view white people as inferior for superficial reasons, but black animus toward white people (I think) goes deeper than that in most cases.

Much like, any group that's been disproportionately mistreated by governments are more likely to be anti-authoritarian than your average person who has not.

It'd be like asking a Jewish person living in Germany in the 1960's "Gee, I just can't understand why you're resentful of government and don't trust the government and military...the current iterations of those two institutions haven't done anything bad to you"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Which policies and societal practices are you referring to?

Jim Crow laws, as well as general targeting of the black community have happened within the last 5 generations, correct?

...and that's even operating on the premise that the dismantling of those laws somehow fostered "instant rectification and equality" (which it obviously didn't). A guy who was in favor of segregation and owned a business didn't magically wake up the day after those laws were squashed and say "Well, I guess I'll hire some black guys to work for me today". Black people were still treated horribly in the South by both public and private institutions decades after those laws were squashed.

I can point out, on a map, areas of Kentucky and West Virginia where you still don't want to be traveling if you're non-white, and where the n-word is still tossed around like hotcakes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think that's entirely a true statement.

One has to wonder then just how many non-white people you know in a personal manner.

Much like, any group that's been disproportionately mistreated by governments are more likely to be anti-authoritarian than your average person who has not.

That's a little bit different in several ways...

First of all, while it's not exactly right to look at the government as one monolithic entity...it's not exactly wrong either. It sort of depends upon the circumstances.

It is however, wrong to judge all people of a particular race based upon the actions of a few members of that race. That's essentially the core of racism. It's a bit like the person who says (hypothetically) "Every black person I know is on welfare ergo black people are lazy."

Just because someone hypothetically has a particular experience with people of a particular race doesn't justify them generalizing the entire race from that experience...that's racist.

Secondly, it's not exactly wrong to be "anti-authoritarian", as there are many things inherently wrong with authoritarianism. There's nothing wrong with being white.

It'd be like asking a Jewish person living in Germany in the 1960's "Gee, I just can't understand why you're resentful of government and don't trust the government and military...the current iterations of those two institutions haven't done anything bad to you"

20 years after they were rounded up and exterminated by the government....I wouldn't be asking that.

Do you think a 20 year old Jewish person would be justified in feeling that way about Germany today? Because I don't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't think that's entirely a true statement...sure, you may find some who just view white people as inferior for superficial reasons, but black animus toward white people (I think) goes deeper than that in most cases.

Much like, any group that's been disproportionately mistreated by governments are more likely to be anti-authoritarian than your average person who has not.

It'd be like asking a Jewish person living in Germany in the 1960's "Gee, I just can't understand why you're resentful of government and don't trust the government and military...the current iterations of those two institutions haven't done anything bad to you"

I get that you do hold black people as less morally culpable for racism. I get that you believe there are valid reasons to do so.

Do you think that you should though? If the goal is equality....the idea that race shouldn't matter and everyone is equal....shouldn't you hold them as accountable for their actions as you would a white person?

When people hold a double standard like this, it comes off as if they really do believe that there are legitimate differences between races and it's ok to generalize about them.

 

[Tom 1]

We are not calling everything racist. That's what the left does.

We said the OP person expressed racist views. And you are the one who keeps telling us that get racist views are understandable. We say it's not. Now we challenge you to let us know how long we should understand the racist view.

Whatever you’re saying there it has nothing to do with anything I said.

 

[Tom 1]

culminating in a forced famine where the British forced the Irish to farm potatoes and then left them to die by the millions from famine.

Where does this idea come from? I’ve seen it posted by other people from the US. It’s entirely false, no-one forced anyone to grow potatoes. The cash crops at the time were cereals, mostly for the British market, the potato had been grown in Ireland for well over 100 yrs and used locally for food. The blight struck so hard because of the heavy reliance on one or two types of high yield potato. As any farmer knows, you can’t continually plant crops of that type without disease or parasites becoming a serious issue. Ironically, from a US point of view, the paucity of aid from England was largely a result of small government, the Pitt government took measures to provide famine relief but anything further was blocked by the lobbying groups that effectively ran the country at the time, wealthy business elites who had the final say on any policy decisions that affected the flow of produce or goods.

As for the rest of it, if you can’t see what the issues are, and how you are skirting around the issue, either you are being deliberately obtuse or you are simply unable to think seriously about it for some reason. I’m not going to waste any more time trying to point out the obvious.

 

[Tom 1]

We aren't calling everything racist, only that which we see as racist.

No, it's like some obsession, trying to weed out racism where we see it.

There is an old saying;
When good people sit back and allow bad people to spread chaos and evil unchallenged..... those good people become contributors to chaos and evil

What's driving it you ask? I don't wanna be a contributor to chaos and evil

What? Seriously I’ve never seen that phrase bent so badly out of its intended meaning. Unbelievable.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Where does this idea come from? I’ve seen it posted by other people from the US.

It's not really a matter of scholarly debate.

1. British landlords extracted enormous rents from Irish peasants pushing them onto smaller and smaller plots of land.

2. The only food stuffs Irish farmers could grow on such small plots and still feed their families was the potato.

Obviously you aren't aware of this particular page in history so I suggest you read up...there's resources everywhere...

Great Famine (Ireland) - Wikipedia

The 1841 census showed a population of just over eight million. Two-thirds of those depended on agriculture for their survival, but they rarely received a working wage. They had to work for their landlords in return for the patch of land they needed to grow enough food for their own families. This was the system which forced Ireland and its peasantry into monoculture, since only the potato could be grown in sufficient quantity. The rights to a plot of land in Ireland could mean the difference between life and death in the early 19th century

Again, this isn't an area of history considered "up for debate".

 

[Ken-1122]

Hostility isn't what we're talking about here. The woman in the vid used in the OP is hardly hostile.

The dictionary define's hostility as:
a hostile state, condition, or attitude; enmity; antagonism; unfriendliness.
Definition of hostility | Dictionary.com
Using the dictionary definition, I think she was hostile

 

[Ana the Ist]

As for the rest of it, if you can’t see what the issues are, and how you are skirting around the issue, either you are being deliberately obtuse or you are simply unable to think seriously about it for some reason. I’m not going to waste any more time trying to point out the obvious.

When you say stuff like this....you sound as if you're surprised anyone would disagree with you.

Make a point. Better yet, make a point and then back it up with some reasoning. Don't just act surprised that everyone doesn't agree with you and then claim that you don't have to explain yourself to people who don't agree with you.

 

[Ken-1122]

As you said, ‘not everything is about racism’ - the opposite of that was not the point I’m making, so you were responding to something other than what I said.

No, I was responding to your implication that injustice in the prison system is the result of the disproportionate number of black and brown people in prison

 

[Ken-1122]

Jim Crow laws, as well as general targeting of the black community have happened within the last 5 generations, correct?

It had an affect on people of that day, but not this day. There is no reason why segregation laws of half a century ago should still have a negative impact on people today

 

[Ken-1122]

What? Seriously I’ve never seen that phrase bent so badly out of its intended meaning. Unbelievable.

I think it makes my point quite well.

 

[Tom 1]

No, I was responding to your implication that injustice in the prison system is the result of the disproportionate number of black and brown people in prison

Ok, well you can look over the study review and see what you think.

 

[Tom 1]

When you say stuff like this....you sound as if you're surprised anyone would disagree with you.

Make a point. Better yet, make a point and then back it up with some reasoning. Don't just act surprised that everyone doesn't agree with you and then claim that you don't have to explain yourself to people who don't agree with you.

Where you respond to any point with random tangents and aren't willing to process obvious realities, where is there to go? It just becomes a pointless quibble over details.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok, well you can look over the study review and see what you think.

I'm having a conversation with YOU not whoever wrote that study review.

 

[Tom 1]

It's not really a matter of scholarly debate.

1. British landlords extracted enormous rents from Irish peasants pushing them onto smaller and smaller plots of land.

2. The only food stuffs Irish farmers could grow on such small plots and still feed their families was the potato.

Obviously you aren't aware of this particular page in history so I suggest you read up...there's resources everywhere...

Great Famine (Ireland) - Wikipedia

The 1841 census showed a population of just over eight million. Two-thirds of those depended on agriculture for their survival, but they rarely received a working wage. They had to work for their landlords in return for the patch of land they needed to grow enough food for their own families. This was the system which forced Ireland and its peasantry into monoculture, since only the potato could be grown in sufficient quantity. The rights to a plot of land in Ireland could mean the difference between life and death in the early 19th century

Again, this isn't an area of history considered "up for debate".

Sure, quoting wikipedia proves your assertion of a 'forced famine' that 'killed millions'. While absentee landlords and tenant farming was an unjust and often brutal practice, it certainly wasn't unique to Ireland at the time, in Europe. The reason for the million or so casualties is in fact debated, there were many factors involved. As in India, where relief efforts failed more or less around the same time because familiar foodstuff were replaced with unfamiliar, maize imported from the US and wheat from Europe was not utilised due partly to a lack of any infrastructure to process the grain and more fundamentally because it represented a complete change in diet, which isn't a simple matter. Of course it could be argued that if the English had not invaded Ireland in the first place the issue wouldn't have arisen, which may well be true. Perhaps your reliance on Wikipedia indicates why you seem to have difficulty with the idea of 'complexity', of how multiple factors have cumulative effects. It's not a question of subjective interpretations of history but of the obvious links between things that happen and how these play out.
It's rather ironic also that talking heads at the time blamed the Irish, citing this or that fact about their behaviour much in the same way that you suggest any difference between ethnicities in the justice system is entirely the result of individual behaviour. It's the general approach that is common to any argument based on ethnicity - the 'look at how they behave, its their own fault' that gets pulled out of the bag to explain away anything.

 

[Tom 1]

I'm having a conversation with YOU not whoever wrote that study review.

The point of those studies is what they indicate. To verify what that is, you would need to read them.

 

[Ken-1122]

The point of those studies is what they indicate. To verify what that is, you would need to read them.

The study doesn't address my point. It's obvious you won't either; I think we're done here.

 

[Tom 1]

The study doesn't address my point. It's obvious you won't either; I think we're done here.

I'll go through your posts and try and find something relevant when I get time.